Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Delay Not Fatal and Alibi Insufficient – Conviction Upheld in Murder Case: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on October 10, 2023, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction and sentences of the accused in a high-profile criminal appeal. The bench, presided over by Justice Sanjay Karol, addressed various crucial aspects of the case and set important legal precedents.

The central issue in this case was the appeal against the High Court's judgment that confirmed the conviction and sentences of the accused individuals under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. The appellants had raised multiple grounds for their appeal.

One of the key aspects addressed by the Supreme Court was the delay in registering the First Information Report (FIR). The Court emphasized that "delay in filing the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution," highlighting that the timing of filing the FIR should be assessed based on the specific circumstances of each case.

Regarding the plea of alibi raised by the accused, the Supreme Court reiterated the legal principles governing such defenses. It stressed that "for the plea of alibi to be established, something other than a mere ocular statement ought to have been present," emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to substantiate alibi claims.

The Court also examined allegations of contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. After careful analysis, it found that the testimonies were coherent on essential aspects of the case, and there was no substantial contradiction that would undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case.

In response to claims about the deceased's criminal record, the Court noted that such claims were unsubstantiated on the record and could not be used as a defense against the charges. The Court emphasized that a history of criminal involvement could not automatically grant the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences, stating that they were neither excessive nor disproportionate to the crimes for which the appellants were convicted. The Court also canceled the bail granted earlier and directed the appellants to surrender immediately.

This judgment sets important legal precedents in criminal appeals, particularly regarding the assessment of delay in FIR registration and the requirements for establishing an alibi defense. It reinforces the principle that a criminal history of the deceased cannot be used as a blanket defense in cases involving serious charges.

Date of Decision: 10 October 2023

KAMAL PRASAD & ORS.  vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Latest Legal News