Keshavlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Supreme Court4 March 2002R.P. Sethi · K.G. Balakrishnan

SCC(2002) 3 SCC 254
AIRAIR 2002 SC 1221

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

1. Where a trial court's acquittal is based upon surmises, conjectures and assumed contradictions, and the High Court finds that omissions or improvements in the testimony of eye-witnesses do not amount to actual contradictions, and that the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy natural witnesses, the High Court is justified in setting aside the acquittal and relying upon such testimony. 2. Non-examination of a weapon of offence by a fingerprint expert does not affect the prosecution's case where it is established that the weapon was handled by multiple persons before seizure, and chemical analysis establishes that the weapon bore human bloodstains. 3. The unavailability of a serologist's report cannot form the basis to discard the evidence of witnesses who otherwise inspire confidence of the court and are believed, particularly where chemical analysis of bloodstains on the accused's clothing and the weapon corroborates their testimony. 4. Where a homicidal act is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel not provoked by the accused, without undue advantage being taken, and not in a cruel or unusual manner, the accused is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, and the offence constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.

1. Holding that the judgment of acquittal passed by thetrial court on the basis of the findings given being totallyerroneous and as a result of misreading the evidence, theHigh Court, vide the judgment impugned in this appeal, setaside the same and convicted the appellant for thecommission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.Consequently, the appellant was sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- In default ofpayment of fine he has been directed to undergo furtherrigorous imprisonment for one year. The High Court foundthat there was no ground to disbelieve the testimony of fiveeye-witnesses and to ignore a number of independentcircumstances which connected the accused with thecommission of the crime.

2. Appearing for the appellant, Shri Y.P. Singh, learnedCounsel (Amicus Curaie) submitted that as the view taken bythe trial court, while acquitting the accused, was aprobable view, the High Court should not have interferedwith by convicting and sentencing the appellant. It iscontended that there being various omissions, improvementsand contradictions in the statement of the eye-witnesses, noreliance should have been placed on their depositions. Asthe weapon of offence is stated to have not been sent forthe examination of finger-print expert, it is argued thatthe accused could not be connected with the omission ofthe crime. It is further submitted that failure to producethe report of the serologist showed that the prosecution waswithholding the same obviously perhaps it was not in itsfavour. Regarding the injury inflicted on the person of thedeceased it is submitted that as the location of the injury,as described by the witnesses, is not the one found in thepost-mortem report, it should be presumed that the eye-witnessesdid not see the occurrence.

3. To appreciate that submissions of the learned counselappearing for the appellant, it is necessary to note downthe prosecution version of the occurrence. DeceasedKamlabai, a young woman of 21 years of age was living withthe appellant as his mistress after her marital relationshad been strained with her husband. On 30th June, 1985 atabout 7 a.m., the appellant is stated to have come at thehouse of the parents of the deceased. Kamlabai was combingher hair in a room where the accused also entered. He hadsome altercation with Kamlabai whereafter he picked up aknife and stabbed her with the result she sustained a deepwound of cutting the vital inner parts of her body. WhenSunderlal (PW3) tried to apprehend the accused, he wasthrown on the ground and attempted to be given a knife blowin his neck. The witnesses who came on spot intervened andsaved Sunderlal. The appellant fled away from the scene ofoccurrence. Jamnabai (PW2), mother of the deceased lodgedthe FIR whereafter the accused also reached the policestation alongwith weapon of offence and was arrested there.To prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied upon thetestimony of Meenabai (PW1), sister of the deceased,Jamnabai (PW2), the mother of the deceased, Sunderlal (PW3),father of the deceased, Kamleshwar (PW4), brother of thedeceased, and Mayabai (PW5), step mother of the deceased.

4. After going through the judgment of the trial court we find that the High Court was justified in setting aside the same because the judgment of acquittal is based upon surmises, conjectures and assumed contradictions. The High Court rightly found that in fact there was no contradiction in the depositions of the eye-witnesses and omissions or improvements noticed by the trial court did not amount to contradictions for the purposes of discarding the testimony of otherwise trustworthy natural witnesses. The trial court totally ignored the testimony of the eye-witnesses while holding that they had not seen the injury because, according to the FIR, the injury allegedly had been inflicted on the nose of the deceased. All the witnesses had deposed in the court that the injury was caused on the body of the deceased from behind near the right shoulder and the force with which it was caused resulted in the cutting of the vital inner parts of her body. Non-examination for the finger-print expert has not, in any way, affected the case of the prosecution because it has come on record that before the seizure of the weapon of offence many persons had handled it. Though the report of the serologist is not available on the record, yet the report of the chemical analyser clearly and unequivocally shows that the clothes of the appellant and the weapon of offence were stained with human blood. Non-ascertain ability of the blood group cannot be made a basis to discard the evidence of the witnesses who otherwise inspire the confidence of the court and are believed. No fault can be found with the judgment of the High Court by which the findings of the acquittal recorded by the trial court were set aside.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case we find that a usual brawl between the persons living as husband and wife resulted in the death of the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that the accused had pre-planned the execution of the offence. It is admitted even by the prosecution witnesses that the appellant had come unarmed at the residence of the parents of the deceased and after altercation he picked up a kitchen knife from that house by which he inflicted one injury on the person of the deceased. It appears that the appellant committed the offence without pre-meditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel which was not provoked by him. It has also come on record that the appellant was not taking any undue advantage during the occurrence. The offence cannot be said to have been committed in a cruel or unusual manner. The appellant accused was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, in its judgment, did not consider this aspect of the matter and despite finding that the occurrence had taken place without pre-meditation and in the heat of passion opted not to advert to any of the exceptions of Section 300 IPC. The High Court only dealt with Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of Section 300 to hold that the appellant was guilty of murder without noticing that culpable homicide would be murder only if the action of the accused does not fall within the ambit of any of the exceptions attached to the section. Even though the appellant was found to be guilty of culpable homicide, yet because he was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4, the crime committed by him would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 304 IPC and not Section 302 IPC. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, required to be modified to that extent.

6. Under the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed by upholding the order of the High Court in so far as it has set aside the order of acquittal passed in favour of the appellant but the impugned judgment is modified to the extent that instead of Section 302 IPC, the appellant is convicted for the commission of offence under Section 304 (Part I). Upon his conviction for the aforesaid offence, the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of one year.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free