Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed convictions arising from an armed group attack using bombs, lathis and sharp weapons. The injured informant’s fear, injuries and temporary shelter explained the reporting delay. Eyewitness accounts were consistent on material facts, while the defence evidence did not establish the asserted alibi. Bald allegations about the deceased’s criminal past did not undermine proof identifying these assailants.
Issues
- Whether the reporting delay and alleged eyewitness contradictions undermined the prosecution.
- Whether the defence established an alibi or reasonable doubt from the deceased’s alleged criminal background.
Provisions considered
- Section 11, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Alibi is an evidentiary plea; it does not reduce the prosecution’s burden, and the defence evidence did not exclude the appellants’ presence after the prosecution proved it. (¶¶ 18, 19.1, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 19.5, 20, 21, 22)
- Sections 148, 302 read with 149, and 307 read with 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Reliable eyewitness testimony supported the armed attack and participation; the convictions and concurrent sentences warranted no interference. (¶¶ 23, 25)
- Sections 4 and 5, Explosive Substances Act, 1908The Court upheld the explosive-substance convictions along with the other convictions on the evidence of the bomb attack. (¶¶ 11, 12, 23, 25)
Held
- Reasonableness of FIR delay depends on the circumstances. The injured witness’s fear, shelter and report when police reached him explained the interval; the record did not suggest consultation or improvements. (¶¶ 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- An alibi does not shift or lessen the prosecution’s burden to prove presence and participation. Once that burden is discharged, the accused must establish the asserted absence through cogent evidence. The defence accounts here did not rebut the consistent identification by prosecution witnesses. (¶¶ 19.1, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 19.5, 20, 21, 22)
- The eyewitnesses agreed on the material circumstances and the appellants’ participation. General allegations about the deceased’s criminal past could not create an alternative-assailant defence against that evidence. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- Neither the convictions nor the concurrent sentences, ranging up to life imprisonment, called for interference; the sentences were not disproportionate to the proved crimes. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Result
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed. Supreme Court bail cancelled, appellants directed to surrender forthwith, and trial court to take consequential steps.