KAMAL PRASAD & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 810 · Decided: 10-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 810 : 2023 INSC 895
810
CASE DETAILS
KAMAL PRASAD & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF 
CHHATTISGARH)
(Criminal Appeal No. 1578 of 2012)
OCTOBER 10, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Case of the prosecution rested primarily 
on the testimonies of three witnesses, conviction of the appellants for 
off ence punishable u/ss.148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, IPC and ss.4/5 
of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and the consequent sentence 
imposed, if justifi ed.
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 
fi ling 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 
811
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 benefi t 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.
KAMAL PRASAD & ORS. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)
 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
812
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1578 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2010 of the High Court of 
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 1992.
Appearances:
Abhishek Vikas, Anshuman Shrivastava, Abhijeet Shrivastava, 
Abhishek Sharma, S. K. Verma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sumeer Sodhi, Yash Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. This

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.