Supreme Court: Courts Should Adopt Liberal Approach In Condoning Delay In Appeals Filed By Convicts from jail

We are deeply dismayed, and equally perturbed by the

order which rejected an application seeking condonation of delay

of 3157 days and as a consequence dismissed the ‘Jail Memo of

Appeal’ against the order of conviction under Section 302, with

sentence imposed of life imprisonment where the convict had, at

the time of the impugned order suffered incarceration of 12 years

and now a further period of 10 years; a total of 22 years. {Para 2}

3. Access to justice still eludes the marginalized sections of our

society and especially those convicted and imprisoned from

amongst them. When the three pillars of democracy consistently

endeavor to bring legal aid to the doorsteps of every citizen,

especially the poor, the needy and the deprived, we, in the

Constitutional Courts should introspect to sensitize ourselves in

taking a liberal approach insofar as delay occasioned in filing an

appeal from an order of conviction and sentence, depriving a

person, the most valuable and fundamental of all rights; liberty.

Not a mere liberal approach but a pro-active one to condone

delay, however large it is when a convict knocks at the door of a

Court, in appeal, which in the present case raises some real

concerns. 

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No…………..of 2026

(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7128 of 2026)

Arjun Jani @ Tuntun Vs   State of Orissa

Author: K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 802

Dated: AUGUST 04, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court Explains Parameters To Decide Application For Additional Evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

 12. The decisions relied on by the Appellant can be captured and

summarised as follows:

12.1 An Appellate Court has a statutory duty to deal with an Application for Additional Evidence on its merits. The application cannot be ignored while the Court proceeds to pronounce the final Judgment. Jatinder Singh (supra)

12.2 The Application must be considered simultaneously with the hearing of the main Appeal on its merits to determine whether the Court "requires" the documents to pronounce Judgment or for any other substantial cause. North Eastern Railway Administration (supra)

12.3 The Appellate Court must pass a specific order either allowing or rejecting the application. If the production of documents is allowed, the Court is obligated to record its reasons for admission.

12.4 Before undertaking the exercise of evaluating the additional evidence, the Appellate Court must first examine the party's pleadings to ensure that the foundational case set up supports the introduction of the proposed evidence.

12.5 Dismissing an appeal without deciding a pending application for additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error and results in a severe miscarriage of justice.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NOS. 10525 OF 2026)

CHOWDAPPA Vs HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AND OTHERS 

Author: S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

Dated: August 6, 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 816

Print Page

Supreme Court explains 4-Steps To Test If Criminal Case Can Be Quashed Based On Defence Material Before Trial

 In Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal

Kapoor8, this Court laid down a 4-step test to

determine if criminal proceedings can be

quashed on the basis of defense

material/official records prior to trial:

“30. Based on the factors canvassed in the

foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the

following steps to determine the veracity of a

prayer for quashment raised by an accused by

invoking the power vested in the High Court

under Section 482 CrPC:

30.1. Step one: whether the material relied

upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and

indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and

impeccable quality?

30.2. Step two: whether the material relied

upon by the accused would rule out the

assertions contained in the charges levelled

against the accused i.e. the material is

sufficient to reject and overrule the factual

assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the

material is such as would persuade a

reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the

factual basis of the accusations as false?

30.3. Step three: whether the material relied

upon by the accused has not been refuted by

the prosecution/complainant; and/or the

material is such that it cannot be justifiably

refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the

trial would result in an abuse of process of the

court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the

affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High

Court should persuade it to quash such

criminal proceedings in exercise of power

vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such

exercise of power, besides doing justice to the

accused, would save precious court time,

which would otherwise be wasted in holding

such a trial (as well as proceedings arising

therefrom) specially when it is clear that the

same would not conclude in the conviction of

the accused.”{Para 19}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.2939 OF 2026)

RAHUL  Vs  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 825.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

No Inflexible Rule That Alibi Can Be Proved Only In Trial : Supreme Court Quashes S. 498A IPC Case Against BSF Personnel

 In these circumstances, continuing a full

sessions trial against the appellant alone,

while his co-accused stand acquitted on the

self-same evidence, would not further the

cause of justice but would subject the

appellant to the ordeal and stigma of a criminal

trial whose substratum has already collapsed.

The High Court, in the impugned judgment,

proceeded on the premise that the appellant's

reliance on the service certificate was a bare

plea of alibi of the kind considered in Rajendra

Singh (supra), and declined to examine

corroborating circumstances. This, in the

considered view of this Court, constituted a

failure to appreciate unimpeachable material

bearing directly on the question of abuse of

process, and calls for interference. {Para 34}

35. In light of the foregoing facts and

circumstances, and the analysis of the legal

precedents referred to above, this Court is of

the view that the four-steps as laid down in the

case of Rajiv Thapar (supra) are satisfied in

the present case. The service certificate is not

disputed as a document, its issuing authority

is not questioned, nor are its contents

disputed. Where the unimpeached

documentary record and the result of a

connected trial on identical evidence, taken

together, demonstrate that the continuation of

the prosecution against the appellant would be

a legal exercise in futility, the High Court, and

now this Court, would be failing in their duty

if they permitted the criminal process to

continue merely because a technical prima

facie case can be spelt out from the bare

averments of the F.I.R. The categories

identified in Bhajan Lal (supra) are

illustrative and not exhaustive, and the

present case falls squarely within the rationale

of categories 1, 3 and 6 concerning inherent

improbability of the allegations and abuse of

the process of the court.

36. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is

satisfied that the continuation of criminal

proceedings against the appellant amounts to

an abuse of the process of the court and

requires to be quashed qua the appellant

alone.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.2939 OF 2026)

RAHUL  Vs  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 825

Print Page