Evidence – Testimonies of eyewitnesses – Reliance upon: Held: Death of the deceased ‘C’ and his son ‘K’ is undisputed – Deceased ‘C’ having sustained multiple injuries upon vital parts of the body as a result of the bombs being thrown at him also stands proved – Testimonies of three witnesses is coherent on material facts such as the presence of the accused on the spot of the crime; the death of the deceased; a blast having taken place; and the accused being the assailants – No force in the contention that the testimonies relied on by the prosecution are inherently contradictory – Further, on facts, delay in filing of the FIR cannot be said to be fatal – Present is not a case of prior consultation; discussion; deliberation or improvements – Furthermore, defence witnesses do not conclusively establish the plea of alibi, based on the principle of preponderance of probability as their statements stand unsupported by any other corroborative evidence – For the plea of alibi to be established, something other than a mere ocular statement ought to have been present – All 3 primary witnesses of the prosecution i.e., PW-3, PW-16, and PW-17 have categorically deposed the presence of the appellants at the spot of the crime and such a statement could not be shaken in cross-examination – Also, the plea of the appellants that the deceased ‘C’ was a history-sheeter and had scores of criminal cases pending against him and thus, probably someone other than the appellants would have wanted his elimination, is unsubstantiated as no details were provided in respect of such cases involving the deceased – Simply because the deceased had a chequered past constituting several run-ins with the law, Courts cannot give benefit thereof to those accused of committing such a person’s murder, particularly when such claims are bald assertions – Charges levied against the accused and the sentence as awarded by the Courts below not interfered with – Bail granted to the appellants stands cancelled, to surrender – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – ss.149, 307 r/w 149 – Explosive Substance Act, 1908 – ss.4/5. [Paras 11, 14, 21-25, 27]
Evidence – Plea of alibi – Principles regarding:
Held: It is not part of the General Exceptions under the IPC and is instead a rule of evidence u/s.11, Evidence Act, 1872 – This plea being taken does not lessen the burden of the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene of the crime and had participated therein – Such plea is only to be considered subsequent to the prosecution having discharged, satisfactorily, its burden – Burden to establish the plea is on the person taking such a plea by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence – A standard of ‘strict scrutiny’ is required when such a plea is taken – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.11. [Para 19.1-19.5] Criminal Law – Delay in registration of FIR – Principles of law – Discussed.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala (1973) 3 SCC 114 : 1973 [2] SCR 16; State of M.P. v. Ratan Singh (2020) 12 SCC 630; Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Singh alias Depak & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine 1059; Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1997) 1 SCC 283 : 1996 [8] Suppl. SCR 22 – relied on.
Ram Jag v. State of U.P (1974) 4 SCC 201 : 1974 [3] SCR 9 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.