Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Gruesome Murder Case: Kallu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 534

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

Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on eyewitness testimony, even if the witnesses are relatives of the deceased? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a gruesome murder stemming from a property dispute. The court examined the evidence and upheld the conviction, emphasizing the reliability of the eyewitness accounts and the severity of the crime. This case highlights the importance of credible eyewitness testimony in criminal proceedings.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Durga, who was allegedly killed by his son Malkhan, grandson Kallu, and one Mata Din on March 27, 1982, at around 3:10 PM. The motive behind the murder was a property dispute. Durga, along with Mullu (PW-1) and Phoola (PW-2), had gone to cut crops in the morning. Later, the accused arrived armed with an axe and sickle and started cutting crops themselves. When Durga objected, Malkhan struck him on the neck with an axe, and all three accused continued to inflict blows, resulting in his death. The prosecution’s case is that the accused, after killing Durga, beheaded him and threw his head away from his body.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Malkhan, Kallu, and Mata Din under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment on August 6, 1982. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld this conviction and sentence on August 31, 2007. The present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the punishment for murder. Section 302 of the IPC states:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

This section provides for the punishment of either death or life imprisonment for those found guilty of murder. The case revolves around whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused under this section.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• ✓ The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated due to a property dispute over ancestral land. He claimed that Mullu (PW-1) committed the murder to usurp the entire property.
• ✓ The appellant contended that Phoola (PW-2) was an interested witness and her testimony should not be relied upon. He argued that she was related to Mullu and had a motive to falsely implicate the accused due to a past dispute involving her brother.
• ✓ It was submitted that Malkhan and Kallu were landless labourers and had no motive to commit the murder.

State’s Arguments:

• ✓ The State argued that the murder was committed by the accused due to a dispute over land. The deceased had allegedly not given 2 bigha land as agreed in the Panchayat.
• ✓ The State presented the testimonies of Mullu (PW-1) and Phoola (PW-2) as eyewitness accounts of the murder.
• ✓ The State emphasized that the murder was brutal, with the deceased being beheaded and his head thrown away from his body.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder was justified based on the evidence presented, specifically considering the arguments regarding false implication, interested witnesses, and lack of motive.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any cases or books. However, it does refer to the following legal provision:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for murder. The court considered this section in determining the appropriate punishment for the accused.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ The credible eyewitness testimony of Mullu (PW-1) and Phoola (PW-2), which was consistent and withstood cross-examination.
• ✓ The established motive for the crime, which was the property dispute and the fact that the accused had been deprived of their share in the property.
• ✓ The gruesome nature of the murder, which indicated the criminal intent of the accused.

The court rejected the arguments of false implication and interested witnesses, finding them to be without merit.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Eyewitness testimony, if found credible, can be a strong basis for conviction, even if the witnesses are relatives of the deceased.
• ✓ A clearly established motive for the crime strengthens the prosecution’s case.
• ✓ The gruesome nature of a crime can be indicative of the criminal intent of the accused.
• ✓ The court will carefully scrutinize claims of false implication and interested witnesses, and such claims will not be accepted if they are not supported by evidence.

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 ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for murder can be sustained based on credible eyewitness testimony, even if the witnesses are relatives of the deceased, provided that the testimony is consistent, and the motive for the crime is established. This case reinforces the existing principles of criminal law and does not introduce any new doctrines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court found that the eyewitness testimony was credible, the motive for the crime was established, and the gruesome nature of the murder indicated the criminal intent of the accused. The court also rejected the arguments of false implication and interested witnesses.