https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310519 The SC reiterated that a plea of alibi must be proved by the accused with certainty and must exclude the possibility of presence at the scene; incomplete defence material and non-examination of the treating doctor failed to dislodge the concurrent findings of guilt. It also held that the FIR was not shown to be ante-timed, and that a difference between the inquest and post-mortem reports was not fatal because the inquest is not substantive evidence and the medical evidence explained the injuries. The eye-witness account substantially matched the medical evidence, and minor variations, antecedents, and absence of independent witnesses did not warrant interference with the conviction. en-us Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:19:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310519 The SC reiterated that a plea of alibi must be proved by the accused with certainty and must exclude the possibility of presence at the scene; incomplete defence material and non-examination of the treating doctor failed to dislodge the concurrent findings of guilt. It also held that the FIR was not shown to be ante-timed, and that a difference between the inquest and post-mortem reports was not fatal because the inquest is not substantive evidence and the medical evidence explained the injuries. The eye-witness account substantially matched the medical evidence, and minor variations, antecedents, and absence of independent witnesses did not warrant interference with the conviction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310519