BALU SUDAM KHALDE & ANR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 29-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
851
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 851
851
BALU SUDAM KHALDE & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1910 of 2010)
MARCH 29, 2023
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302 r/w 34 – Prosecution case that verbal altercation
between the parties resulting in a fight wherein first informant
assaulted on the head and the deceased suffered severe assault
and succumbed to his injuries – Appellants convicted u/s 302 r/w
34, and sentenced to life imprisonment, however, acquittal of A-2
and A-4 – High Court upheld the order – Interference with – Held:
Not called for – Oral evidence of all the three eyewitnesses is
consistent and no good reason for the court to disbelieve the ocular
version as narrated by the three eyewitnesses – Courts below
recorded a concurrent finding that they are reliable witnesses –
Suggestions put by the defence counsel in the cross-examination of
the eyewitnesses establishes the presence of first informant at the
scene of offence and the factum of assault could also be said to
have been admitted – PW 3 could be termed as a res gestae witness
– ss. 6 and 7 of the 1872 Act, in so far as, the admissibility of a
statement of the PW-3 is concerned, would be attracted – Having
regard to the nature of the injuries, they were caused by dangerous
weapons which, were applied on the vital part of the body, it is a
case of s. 302 – Case would not fall within the exception 4 to s. 300
– Assuming that the incident had occurred in the heat of the moment
and fight was also sudden, the fact that the appellants inflicted as
many as nine blows with a dangerous weapon on the deceased who
was unarmed and was helpless should not be overlooked – Evidence
Act, 1872 – s.6 and 7.
Exception 4 to Section 300 – Applicability of – Held: To bring
a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be
found.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
Evidence:
Oral Evidence – Evidentiary value of – Held: Appreciation
of ocular evidence is a hard task – There is no fixed or straight-
jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence – In assessing
the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal
considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is
possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in
such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the
facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything
inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence.
Cross-examination – Concession or admission of fact by
defence counsel – Nature – of – Held: 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 – Thus, the
suggestion made by the defence counsel to a witness in the cross-
examination if found to be incriminating in nature in any manner
would definitely bind the accused – Accused cannot get away on
the plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions
in the nature of admissions against his client.
Doctrines/Principles: Principle of Res Gestae – Rule of –
Held: Rule embodied in s. 6 is usually known as the rule of res
gestae – It means that a fact which, though not in issue, is so
connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same
transaction” becomes relevant by itself – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.6
and 7.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard
task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation
of the ocular evidence. [Para 25][865-E]
1.2 In assessing the value of the evidence of the
eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the
circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence
at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it
possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and
secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or
unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
853
considerations, circumstances either elicited from those
witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending
to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of
their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court
would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea
of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the
accused

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.