Supreme Court upholds conviction in gruesome murder case: Kallu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2023

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1446 of 2014

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the accused claims false implication due to a property dispute? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case involving a gruesome murder. The court examined the evidence, including eyewitness testimony and the nature of the crime, to determine the validity of the conviction. The bench consisted of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with the judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

On March 27, 1982, at approximately 3:10 p.m., Durga was murdered. An FIR was filed against Malkhan (Durga’s son), Kallu (Durga’s grandson), and Mata Din. The prosecution stated that the murder was a result of a property dispute. Durga, along with Mullu (PW-1) and Phoola (PW-2), had gone to cut crops in the field. Around noon, the accused arrived armed with an axe and sickle and began cutting the crops. When Durga objected, Malkhan struck him on the neck with the axe. Following this, all three accused inflicted multiple blows on Durga, leading to his death. The post-mortem report confirmed the cause of death.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Malkhan, Kallu, and Mata Din under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the Trial Court’s judgment on August 31, 2007. The present appeal before the Supreme Court challenges the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder.
“302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated due to a property dispute over ancestral land. The appellant, being the grandson of the deceased, was to inherit the property.
• It was contended that Mullu (PW-1), the son of the deceased, committed the murder to usurp the entire property.
• The appellant claimed that Smt. Phoola (PW-2) was an interested witness. PW-2 was the cousin sister of Mullu (PW-1) and also of Malkhan. She wanted to settle in the village and thus favored PW-1. Further, Malkhan had testified against PW-2’s brother in a theft case, creating a motive for her to testify against him.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the murder was committed by the deceased’s son and grandson, along with Mata Din.
• The motive was that the deceased did not give 2 bigha of land as agreed in the Panchayat.
• The prosecution presented an eye-witness account by Mullu (PW-1), the son of the deceased, who saw Malkhan strike the first blow with an axe on the neck of the deceased. All three accused then inflicted further blows, beheading the deceased.
• Phoola (PW-2) also testified as an eye-witness, corroborating PW-1’s account.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but dealt with the following points:

1. Whether the appellant was falsely implicated due to a property dispute.
2. Whether Mullu (PW-1) was a credible witness.
3. Whether Phoola (PW-2) was an interested witness.
4. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction based on the evidence presented.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any case laws or books.

Judgment

The court did not cite any specific authorities. However, it relied on the eyewitness accounts of PW-1 and PW-2, along with the post-mortem report, to uphold the conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the gruesome nature of the murder, the direct eye-witness accounts, and the established motive. The fact that the accused were living separately from the family and had a clear motive to harm the deceased weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court also emphasized that the testimonies of the eye-witnesses were consistent and withstood cross-examination. The Court found no reason to doubt the credibility of the witnesses or the prosecution’s case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that Mullu (PW-1) himself committed the murder, noting that he was living with the deceased, while the accused had a grudge. The Court also dismissed the argument that Phoola (PW-2) was an interested witness, as her relationship with the deceased did not affect her credibility and her testimony corroborated that of PW-1. The Court emphasized that the murder was committed in broad daylight and the manner in which it was committed was gruesome, indicating the intention and criminal bent of mind of the accused.

“The manner in which murder of the deceased was committed was gruesome. This shows their intention and criminal bent of mind.”

“The statement made by Mullu, PW-1, son of the deceased, who is eye witness to the offence, had withstood the test of cross-examination.”

“PW-2, Phula is also an eye-witness of the incident. She also corroborated what was stated by PW-1. There was no variation in the statements made by them.”

Key Takeaways

• Eyewitness testimony, when consistent and credible, is a strong form of evidence in criminal cases.
• Motive plays a significant role in establishing guilt, especially when coupled with other evidence.
• The court will not easily dismiss the testimony of a witness merely because of their relationship with the victim or other witnesses.
• Gruesome nature of the crime can be considered in determining the intention of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant, who was released on bail, to surrender before the trial court within two weeks to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness testimony and motive in criminal cases. It does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms the existing legal framework concerning murder trials. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conviction for murder can be upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and a clear motive, even if the accused claims false implication due to a property dispute.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The Court found no error in the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the gruesome nature of the murder, the consistent eyewitness accounts, and the established motive. The appellant was ordered to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence.