Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Balu Sudam Khalde vs. State of Maharashtra (29 March 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 314

Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the defense argues the act occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. The State of Maharashtra. The case revolves around a brutal assault that resulted in the death of one person, and the key issue was whether the accused could claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fights. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, with the majority opinion authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Case Background

On April 1, 2001, at approximately 11:15 PM, Asgar Shaikh (PW1), the first informant, was talking with his friend Abbas Baig (the deceased). A verbal altercation occurred when Santosh Khalde, accompanied by another individual, passed by. Later, Balu Khalde (Appellant No. 1), Ramesh Mohite, Raju Mohite, and Santosh Khalde (Appellant No. 2) returned to the scene. A fight broke out, during which Asgar Shaikh was assaulted on the head, and Abbas Baig was severely attacked with a sickle and sword, leading to his death. The incident occurred near Shri Sai Car Auto Consultant in Pune. Asgar Shaikh lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on April 2, 2001, at around 2:00 AM.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court framed charges against the four accused under Sections 302, 323, 324, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court convicted Balu Khalde (Appellant No. 1) and Santosh Khalde (Appellant No. 2) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine. The other two accused were acquitted. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the appeal filed by the convicted appellants, thereby affirming the Trial Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder. Section 300 of the IPC defines murder, specifying the circumstances under which culpable homicide amounts to murder. Exception 4 to Section 300 states that culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, provided the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The court also considered Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the principle of res gestae, where facts connected with a fact in issue form part of the same transaction and are relevant.

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or— Secondly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or— Thirdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,— Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”

Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states:

“6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.—Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and place.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in upholding the conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimony. They contended that the presence of the first informant (PW1), Asgar Shaikh, was doubtful because he did not seek medical treatment for his alleged head injury.
• They challenged the discovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, claiming the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.
• The appellants argued that even if the prosecution’s case was accepted, the offense would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, due to a sudden fight.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the eyewitness accounts were credible and consistent, with no reason to falsely implicate the appellants.
• The State contended that the case did not fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, given the severity and number of injuries inflicted on the deceased with dangerous weapons.
• The State highlighted the discovery of weapons as relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, supporting the prosecution’s case.

Analysis of Arguments:

The defense focused on discrediting the eyewitness testimony and arguing for a lesser charge, while the prosecution emphasized the reliability of the eyewitnesses and the brutality of the crime. The defense argued that the absence of a medical certificate for PW1’s head injury casts doubt on his presence at the scene, while the prosecution highlighted the consistent testimony of multiple eyewitnesses. The defense also argued that the discovery of weapons was not properly proven, while the prosecution argued it was relevant conduct.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order, specifically in upholding the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753)] – Regarding the principles for appreciation of ocular evidence.
• Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [AIR 1995 SC 3717] – Regarding the principles for appreciation of ocular evidence.
• Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP [(AIR 1959 SC 1012)] – Regarding the principles for appreciation of ocular evidence.
• Tarun Bora alias Alok Hazarika v. State of Assam [2002 Cri. LJ 4076] – Regarding the evidentiary value of suggestions in cross-examination.
• Rakesh Kumar alias Babli v. State of Haryana [(1987) 2 SCC 34] – Regarding the evidentiary value of suggestions in cross-examination.
• Sukhar v. State of U.P. [(1999) 9 SCC 507] – Regarding the principle of res gestae under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another [(1976) 4 SCC 382] – Regarding the distinction between murder and culpable homicide.
• Parkash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2004) 11 SCC 381] – Regarding the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
• Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala [AIR 1966 SC 1874] – Regarding the application of clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC.
• Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465] – Regarding the interpretation of clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC.
• Govind s/o Soneram v. State of M.P. [2005 Cri.LJ 1244] – Regarding the object of cross-examination.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for murder.
• Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Definition of murder and its exceptions.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Discovery of facts based on information received from accused.
• Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct.
• Section 6, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction (res gestae).

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court found the eyewitness testimonies to be reliable and consistent. It also noted that the defense’s suggestions during cross-examination, which inadvertently admitted the presence of the accused at the scene, further strengthened the prosecution’s case. The Court rejected the argument that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, emphasizing the severity of injuries inflicted with dangerous weapons on vital parts of the body, which indicated a cruel and unusual manner of attack. The Court also discussed the principle of res gestae, noting that PW3’s testimony was admissible as he had heard the details of the incident from PW1 immediately after the assault.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753)], Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [AIR 1995 SC 3717] and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP [(AIR 1959 SC 1012)] for the principles of appreciating ocular evidence.
• The Court used Tarun Bora alias Alok Hazarika v. State of Assam [2002 Cri. LJ 4076] and Rakesh Kumar alias Babli v. State of Haryana [(1987) 2 SCC 34] to support the view that suggestions made by the defense counsel in the cross-examination, if incriminating, would bind the accused.
• The Court applied the principle of res gestae as explained in Sukhar v. State of U.P. [(1999) 9 SCC 507] to admit PW3’s testimony.
• The Court referred to State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another [(1976) 4 SCC 382] to distinguish between murder and culpable homicide.
• The Court cited Parkash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2004) 11 SCC 381] to explain the conditions required to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
• The Court used Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala [AIR 1966 SC 1874] and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465] to explain the application of clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC.
• The Court quoted Govind s/o Soneram v. State of M.P. [2005 Cri.LJ 1244] to explain the object of cross-examination.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies, which were found to be consistent and credible. The Court also considered the severity of the injuries inflicted on the deceased, which were deemed to be cruel and unusual, thereby negating the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The Court further emphasized the significance of the defense’s suggestions during cross-examination, which inadvertently admitted the presence of the accused at the scene. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the principle of res gestae, which allowed the admission of PW3’s testimony. The Court’s analysis of the nature of the injuries and the weapons used was also a key factor in their decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them based on the evidence. The court rejected the defense’s argument that the case fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, emphasizing that the nature of the injuries and the use of dangerous weapons indicated a cruel and unusual manner of attack, which did not qualify for the exception. The court also rejected the defense’s argument that the eyewitness testimonies were not reliable, citing the consistency and credibility of the witnesses. The Court concluded that the appellants had committed murder and were not entitled to the benefit of Exception 4.

The Court’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and the applicable legal provisions. The Court carefully considered the arguments of both parties and the evidence presented, and it ultimately concluded that the appellants were guilty of murder. The Court’s decision was also based on the principle of fairness and justice, and it was intended to ensure that the guilty are punished and that the innocent are protected. The court’s reasoning was logical and well-supported by the evidence and the law.

“The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence.”

“The main object of cross-examination is to find out the truth on record and to help the Court in knowing the truth of the case.”

“Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

Key Takeaways

• Eyewitness testimony, if consistent and credible, is a strong form of evidence.
• Suggestions made by the defense during cross-examination can be used against the accused if they are incriminating.
• The principle of res gestae can be used to admit statements made immediately after an incident.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC is not applicable if the offender has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
• The severity and nature of injuries are crucial in determining whether a case is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

This judgment reinforces the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and the strict interpretation of exceptions to murder under the Indian Penal Code. It also highlights that the conduct of the defense counsel during cross-examination can have significant evidentiary value. The decision underscores that the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC will not be extended to cases where the attack is cruel and unusual.

Directions

The Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of the bail bonds of both appellants and directed them to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks from the date of the judgment. Upon surrender, they were to be sent to judicial custody to serve out their sentence.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC will not be extended to cases where the attack is cruel and unusual. The judgment reinforces that the severity of injuries, the use of dangerous weapons, and the nature of the attack are crucial factors in determining whether a case is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court also clarified that suggestions made by the defense during cross-examination can have evidentiary value if they are incriminating. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment provides a clear application of existing principles to a specific set of facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Balu Sudam Khalde and Santosh Khalde for murder, finding the eyewitness testimonies reliable and the nature of the attack too cruel to qualify for Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The judgment emphasizes the importance of credible eyewitness evidence, the evidentiary value of defense suggestions during cross-examination, and the strict interpretation of exceptions to murder. The appellants were ordered to surrender to serve their sentence.

Categories

• Supreme Court Judgments
• Indian Penal Code
• Murder
• Culpable Homicide
• Criminal Law
• Section 302 IPC
• Section 300 IPC
• Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
• Res Gestae
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Cross-Examination
• Balu Sudam Khalde
• State of Maharashtra
• 2023 Judgments