LI Network
Published on: October 15, 2023 at 14:08 IST
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, affirmed the conviction of nine accused individuals for a crime committed in 1988. Notably, these accused individuals had been granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2012, but they have now been ordered to surrender.
The Trial Court had convicted these individuals for various offenses under the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including murder. The sentences ranged from three years of rigorous imprisonment to life imprisonment, all to be served concurrently.
The High Court had upheld these sentences, leading the convicts to approach the Supreme Court to challenge their convictions.
The convicts raised several grounds for their appeal, including a plea for alibi. However, the Supreme Court was not convinced by their defense submissions.
In its judgment, the Court laid out specific principles related to the plea of alibi.
These principles were derived from various landmark decisions, including Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B., (1994) , and Vijay Pal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2015). Some of the key principles mentioned in the judgment include:
- The plea of alibi is not a part of the General Exceptions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but is considered a rule of evidence under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- The burden to establish the plea of alibi lies with the person making the claim. This must be accomplished by providing clear and satisfactory evidence.
- The plea of alibi must be proven with certainty, completely excluding the possibility of the accused being present at the crime scene. A strict scrutiny standard is required when presenting such a plea.
Case Background
The case in question involved an incident on April 17, 1988, where a man named Chetram was attacked while taking his son Kapildeo to the hospital. Chetram succumbed to his injuries, and Kapildeo also died later in the hospital.
The Trial Court convicted nine out of the eleven accused persons, a decision upheld by the High Court. Dissatisfied with this, the convicts appealed to the Supreme Court.
The convicts challenged their convictions on several grounds, including the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR), the deceased’s criminal history, and the plea of alibi. The Supreme Court addressed each of these issues individually.
Regarding the delay in filing the FIR, the Court noted that it was registered about two hours after the incident occurred. The delay was attributed to the pillion rider’s injuries and fear, who had to hide for two hours before reporting the incident. The Court cited legal precedents to establish that the “reasonable time” for filing an FIR varies with the circumstances of each case, and in this instance, the delay did not undermine the prosecution’s case.
The plea of alibi put forth by the accused was also scrutinized by the Court. The defense witnesses failed to conclusively establish the alibi, as their statements lacked corroborative evidence. The Court emphasized that more than mere eyewitness statements are required to prove an alibi.
Addressing the argument that the deceased had a criminal history, the Court firmly stated that past criminal activities should not be presumed as a benefit for those accused of murder, especially when such claims are unsupported.
In conclusion, the Court found that the sentences awarded were not excessive or disproportionate to the crimes for which the convicts were convicted. As a result, the bail granted in 2012 was canceled, and the convicts were directed to surrender.
CASE TITLE: “KAMAL PRASAD & ORS v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1578 OF 2012.”
