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

Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 266

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

Can a suggestion made by a defense lawyer during cross-examination be used as evidence against the accused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while examining a case of murder. The court upheld the conviction of two individuals, affirming that suggestions made by defense counsel during cross-examination, if incriminating, can be considered as evidence. This case revolves around a fatal assault and the subsequent legal battle concerning the accused’s culpability.

Case Background

On April 1, 2001, at approximately 11:15 PM, Asgar Shaikh (PW1) and his friend Abbas Baig were talking near a shop when they were confronted by Santosh Khalde and another person. A verbal altercation ensued, and later, Santosh returned with Balu Khalde (Appellant 1), Ramesh Mohite, and Raju Mohite. A fight broke out. Asgar Shaikh was hit on the head with a sickle, allegedly by Balu Khalde, and Abbas Baig was severely assaulted with a sickle and sword, leading to his death. The incident occurred in front of Shri Sai Car Auto Consultant in Pune. Asgar Shaikh filed a First Information Report (FIR) on April 2, 2001, around 2:00 AM.

Abbas Baig was taken to the hospital in a rickshaw owned by Nasir Khan (PW3), but was declared dead on arrival. The police conducted an investigation, arresting the four accused and seizing weapons. The Trial Court convicted Balu Khalde and Santosh Khalde (Appellant 2), while acquitting Ramesh and Raju Mohite. The High Court upheld this conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Balu Khalde and Santosh Khalde under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The other two accused were acquitted. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the appeal, affirming the Trial Court’s decision. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder. It states:

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

The court also considered Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

“34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

The court also discussed Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction.

“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.”

The Court also discussed Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with how much of information received from the accused may be proved.

“27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

Additionally, the court referred to Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which pertains to the motive, preparation, and conduct.

“8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.—Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.”

The court also discussed Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which provides an exception to murder in cases of sudden fights without premeditation.

“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.”

Arguments

Submissions on Behalf of the Appellants:

• The High Court erred in upholding the conviction based on unreliable eyewitness accounts.
• The presence of the first informant (PW1) at the scene is doubtful, as he did not seek medical treatment for his alleged head injury.
• The discovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is unreliable because the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.
• Even if the prosecution’s case is true, it should be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, due to a sudden fight without premeditation.

Submissions on Behalf of the State:

• The eyewitness accounts are credible, and there is no reason to doubt their veracity.
• There is no basis to consider the case under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as the appellants acted cruelly by inflicting multiple injuries with dangerous weapons.
• The discovery of weapons is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and supports the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The court considered several authorities to reach its decision:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• 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)]* were used to establish principles for appreciating ocular evidence.
• 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]* were used to support the view that suggestions made during cross-examination can be incriminating.
• Govind s/o Soneram v. State of M.P. [2005 Cri.LJ 1244]* was used to emphasize the objective of cross-examination.
• Sukhar v. State of U.P. [(1999) 9 SCC 507]* was used to explain 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]* was used to distinguish between murder and culpable homicide.
• Prakash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2004) 11 SCC 381]* was used to outline the conditions for applying Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala [AIR 1966 SC 1874]* was used to illustrate that intention to cause death is not necessary for murder.
• Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465]* was used to explain the meaning and scope of clause (3) of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the consistent and reliable eyewitness testimonies, the incriminating nature of the defense’s suggestions during cross-examination, and the severity of the injuries inflicted on the deceased. The Court emphasized that the defense’s attempt to use Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not valid due to the cruel and unusual manner in which the assault was carried out. The Court also noted that the suggestions made by the defense counsel during cross-examination, which admitted the presence of the accused and the fact of assault, were critical in establishing the guilt of the accused.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 because the assault was not a simple fight but a brutal attack with dangerous weapons, indicating the accused had taken undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner. The court also considered the principle of res gestae, where statements made immediately after an event can be considered part of the same transaction and therefore admissible as evidence. The court emphasized that while the prosecution must prove its case, incriminating suggestions made by the defense can be taken into consideration.

The court quoted from the judgment:

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

“Any concession or admission of a fact by a defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except the concession on the point of law.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Suggestions made by defense counsel during cross-examination can be used as evidence against the accused if they are incriminating.
• The principle of res gestae allows statements made immediately after an event to be considered part of the same transaction and admissible as evidence.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not apply if the accused has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner during a fight.
• The severity of injuries and the use of dangerous weapons can negate the defense of a sudden fight.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the appellants be cancelled and that they surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks to serve out their sentences.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that suggestions made by the defense counsel during cross-examination can be used as evidence against the accused if they are incriminating. This clarifies the evidentiary value of such suggestions, which was previously ambiguous. This case reinforces the principle that the defense must be careful about the suggestions they make during cross-examination as it might be used against them. The court also clarified that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 cannot be invoked if the accused has acted in a cruel or unusual manner, thus reinforcing the importance of the nature of the assault in determining culpability.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Balu Sudam Khalde and Santosh Khalde for murder. The Court emphasized the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, the incriminating nature of the defense’s suggestions during cross-examination, and the severity of the assault. This judgment reinforces the principle that the defense’s actions during cross-examination can have evidentiary consequences and that the nature of the assault is critical in determining whether a case falls under the exception of a sudden fight.