2023 Supreme(SC) 295

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Balu Sudam Khalde And Another – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1910 of 2010
Decided on : 29-03-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Ordinarily, a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span – Presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(2) Proof of guilt required of prosecution does not depend on satisfaction made to a witness.
(3) Any concession or admission of a fact by a defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except concession on point of law.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task – There is no fixed or strait-jacket formula for appreciation of ocular evidence – Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching core of case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by investigating officer not going to root of matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of evidence as a whole – Ordinarily, a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span – A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on – Presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition – Although in cases where plea of accused is a mere denial, evidence of prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of prosecution, nature of such plea or case and probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing value of prosecution evidence. (Paras 25, 26 and 27)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Oral evidence of all three eyewitnesses is consistent – Proof of guilt required of prosecution does not depend on satisfaction made to a witness – Death of deceased occurred due to culpable homicide and not due to accident or suicide – Sine qua non for application of an Exception to Section 300 of IPC always is that it is a case of murder but accused claims benefit of Exception to bring it out of that Section and to make it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Having regard to nature of injuries caused by dangerous weapons like sickle and sword which, were applied on vital part of body, it is a case of Section 302 of IPC – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 28, 34, 38, 39, 41, 55, 57, 60, 62 and 63)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal – Scope and ambit – In exercise of power under Article 136 of Constitution of India, Supreme Court, normally would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact, except in very special circumstances or in case of a gross error committed by courts below – Only where High Court ignores or overlooks “crying circumstances” and “proven facts” or “violates and misapplies well established principles of criminal jurisprudence” or refuses to give benefit of doubt to accused persons, etc., would Supreme Court step in to correct legally erroneous decisions – Supreme Court not to interfere only for reason that it may arrive at a different conclusion, unless, there are compelling circumstances to tinker with conclusions drawn and that accused were innocent/guilty – There are limitations in interfering with findings of conviction, concurrent in nature. (Para 30)

(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of Proof – Initial burden to establish case against accused beyond reasonable doubt rests on prosecution – Prosecution has to prove its case on its own legs and cannot derive advantage or benefit from weakness of defence – Suggestions by itself are not sufficient to hold accused guilty if they are incriminating in any manner or are in form of admission in absence of any other reliable evidence on record – Principle of law that in a criminal case, a Lawyer has no implied authority to make admissions against his client during progress of trial would hold good only in cases where dispensation of proof by prosecution is not permissible in law – Suggestions made to witness by defence counsel and reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of evidence and can be relied upon by Court along with other evidence on record to determine guilt of accused. (Paras 40, 41 and 42)

(E) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 6 – Principle of Res Jestae – Fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with fact in issue “as to form part of same transaction” becomes relevant by itself – To form particular statement as part of same transaction utterances must be simultaneous with incident or substantial contemporaneous that is made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence. (Para 49)

(F) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 18 – Admission – Suggestion made by defence counsel to a witness in cross-examination if found to be incriminating in nature in any manner would definitely bind accused and accused cannot get away on plea that his Counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in nature of admissions against his client – Any concession or admission of a fact by a defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except concession on point of law – Principle of law that in a criminal case, a lawyer has no implied authority to make admissions against his client during progress of trial would hold good only in cases where dispensation of proof by prosecution is not permissible in law. (Paras 38, 39, 40 and 41)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal by special leave is at the instance of two convict persons and is directed against judgment and order dated 02.03.2009 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 2003 by which High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and thereby affirmed the order of conviction and the consequence sentence dated 12.03.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dated 12.03.2003 in Sessions Case No. 323 of 2001, by convicting both the appellants herein for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each with stipulation that in default of payment of fine they would undergo rigorous imprisonment for further six months.

Findings of Court:

Assuming for the moment that incident had occurred in the heat of the moment and fight was also sudden, we should not overlook the fact that the appellants herein inflicted as many as nine blows with a dangerous weapon on the deceased who was unarmed and was helpless. For cases to fall within clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC, it is not necessary that offender intended to cause death, so long as death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Result : Appeal dismissed.