Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in murder case if accused takes the plea of alibi?

The evidence of the present matter shows that accused No. 1 was living in the room with the deceased where the murder took place. Accused No. 1 is an agriculturist. The evidence on the record does not show that accused has any relative at Alandi and there was any reason for him for going to Alandi and staying there for such a long time, for about six days. In ordinary course, a male member of family where there is only one adult male member does not leave station for days together. The male member stays at home in the night time and he leaves home in the day time for work. Though the Trial Court has held that explanation is given by accused No. 1 that he was out of station one day prior to the date of incident, the statement given by accused No. 1 under section 313 of Cr.P.C. shows that accused No. 1 contended that he had left home three days prior to the date of incident. In the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused No. 1 has further contended that he returned to his village Warud Kazi on 4.12.2004 and he had learnt first time on 3.12.2004 about the incident. Thus, he admits that he was able to keep contact with his family if he was at Alandi and he admits that he was not at station up to 4.12.2004. In view of provision of section 114 of Evidence Act, it was necessary for accused No. 1 to give particulars as to where he was living in Alandi for the period given by him, for about six days. He could have examined witnesses and he could have produced some record if such record was created to create a probability that on the night between 1.12.2004 and 2.12.2004 he was not at Warud Kazi. That is not done by accused No. 1. {Para 19}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2006

Decided On: 18.01.2018

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramnath

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.V. Nalawade and Sunil K. Kotwal, JJ.

Author: T.V. Nalawade, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0078/2018,2018 ALL MR (CRI) 3825.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances the court can convict accused based on call detail records and location data of the mobile numbers used by accused?

 The call detail records further amplify the incriminating previous conduct of A1 on the date of incident. The records reveal that A1 was in constant touch with A2, A3 and A5 before the incident. Further, A3, A4 and A5 were in constant touch with each other. The prosecution has relied upon a chart prepared on the basis of the call detail records of the accused persons and it indicates that all the accused persons were in contact with each other. Even without this chart, the call records are quite clear. To add to it, the location data of the mobile numbers used by the accused persons reveals that all the accused persons were present around the restaurant at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the location of A3 to A6 was also traceable at the same spot where the deceased was found in the Honda Accord car at around 12:05 AM after the incident. In such circumstances, the courts have drawn a reasonable inference that the accused persons were acting in a coordinated manner and had an overwhelming nexus with the offence. 

{Para 17}

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal No(s). 3866 of 2025

Piyush Shyamdasani  Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 

Decided on July 20, 2026

Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1357. Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court can convict the accused if Mobile numbers relied upon by the prosecution were not in the name of the accused persons?

 The appellants herein seek to question the findings on the ground that the mobile numbers reflected in the call detail records did not belong to the accused persons. This, in fact, is another incriminating circumstance because the numbers did not belong to the accused persons, but they were found running in the mobile devices recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused persons. Thus, they were using fake numbers to conceal their identities and to evade surveillance. Notably, A1 was admittedly using two numbers - one registered in his own name and one in the name of his employee (a worker in his factory). Both the numbers were mentioned by him in his original complaint after the incident. The number used by A4 was found running in the mobile phone recovered from him, and the number used by A5 was installed in his phone, which was left by him at his home when he fled away after the incident. When called by the investigators, the call was picked up by the mother of A5 and she disclosed that it was used by A5 only. Again, no rebuttal has been advanced to dispute these facts. {Para 19}

20. The call details reveal that the accused persons were in constant touch with each other using these numbers, irrespective of the persons in whose names the numbers were officially registered. The evidence on record has indicated sufficient nexus between the numbers reflected in the call detail records and the accused persons. If there was any discrepancy in this evidence, the accused persons could have led counter evidence to that effect. However, they failed to rebut this crucial technical evidence. The Court cannot set aside consistent evidentiary findings on bare assertions, without any cogent evidence to support the assertions.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal No(s). 3866 of 2025

Piyush Shyamdasani  Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 

Decided on July 20, 2026

Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1357

Print Page

Supreme Court: What must be the nature of enquiry which is Necessary To Dismiss Employee from service For Suppression Of Criminal Antecedents?

 Needless to say, knowledge of a fact is a necessary

pre-requisite for its non-disclosure. The very concept of

suppression presupposes an awareness of that which is

suppressed; one cannot be said to have withheld or

concealed something of which one had no knowledge in

the first place. It would be both illogical and unjust to

hold a candidate liable for suppression of information

that was never within his knowledge to begin with.

Therefore, where the very existence of a criminal

antecedent is not shown to have been within the

candidate's knowledge at the relevant time, he cannot be

held to have suppressed or furnished false information

in that regard, there being no suppression of a fact that

was, to him, non-existent. {Para 31}

32. We hasten to add that such lack of awareness of

the existence of a criminal antecedent is itself a fact that

must be established by the candidate, the onus being

upon him to substantiate the claim before the employer.

A bare plea of ignorance, without cogent and reliable

material to assert such claim, will not suffice to escape

liability. Were it otherwise, the requirement of disclosure

in verification forms would be rendered illusory, open to

circumvention by simply pleading ignorance. In the

present case, as discussed above, we find that the

appellant's consistent claim of bona fide ignorance of the

NCR stands duly established by documentary evidence

on record.

33. The second prong of the enquiry to be undertaken

is whether the criminal antecedent, and the

suppression, if any, is of such nature that merits

termination of employment. In the present case, we

observe that although sufficient opportunity was

granted to the appellant to put forth his case, the

authorities have not undertaken such enquiry. They

have not considered the specific facts and circumstances

and have proceeded under the presumption that

existence of the criminal antecedent would

automatically render the appellant ineligible for the post.

There have been no specific findings regarding the

specific nature of the offence and its impact on the

nature of the post held by the appellant, and the

subsequent discharge of the appellant has not been

given due consideration.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.________OF 2026

[ @ SLP(CIVIL) NO. 7197 OF 2026 ]

SHATRUGHN YADAV Vs THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. (F.A.C.T.) AND OTHERS 

Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 829

Dated: AUGUST 11, 2026.

Print Page