In a recent Reportable Judgement (BALU SUDAM KHALDE AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[1]), the Supreme Court observed that suggestions made by the defence attorney to a witness during cross-examination, if found to be incriminating in nature, would unquestionably bind the accused and that the accused cannot escape on the ground that his attorney lacked implied authority to make suggestions like admissions against his client. Except for the concession on a legal issue, a defence attorney’s concession or acknowledgement of fact would be binding on his client. Justices Sudhanshu Dulia and JB Pardiwala’s bench of justices explained this crucial case element.
In other words, if a suggestion is incriminating in any way or takes the shape of admission and there isn’t any other solid evidence on file, it isn’t enough to convict the accused. Therefore, we believe that the defence attorney’s recommendations to the witness and the witness’s response to those suggestions would unquestionably be considered part of the evidence and could be used by the Court in conjunction with other evidence in the record to establish the guilty status of the accused.
The learned attorney for the appellants claimed that by dismissing their appeal against the verdict and order of conviction rendered by the Trial Court, the two appellants’ appeal was rejected in a grave error by the High Court. The experienced attorney contended that the ocular version on file needs to inspire confidence and that it is unlikely that PW 1 Asgar Shaikh, the first informant, was present. Because the panch witnesses were unable to bolster the prosecution’s case or establish the integrity of the panchnama, it was not possible to rely on the finding of the weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The situation is covered by Section 300 of the IPC’s Exception 4.
The State of Maharashtra’s experienced attorney, Mr Abhikalp Pratap Singh, has opposed the appeal, claiming that there is no justification to question the eyewitnesses’ eyewitness testimony and that no case has been made to qualify the case for the protection of Exception IPC section 4 to 300. Additionally, he claimed that Section 8 of the Act of 1872 refers to the fact that the weapons’ finding refers to the accused’s actions.
The Supreme Court has stated that there is no set formula for evaluating oral testimony, which is a challenging process. It has provided guidelines on assessing the significance of eyewitness testimony, especially that of a wounded witness. Minor differences or inconsistencies should only be given a little weight if they undermine the veracity of the witness’s account. In addition, the intimidation of the courtroom and cross-examination can cause witnesses to misremember events. Finally, unless a previous assertion has the power to do so, it is not necessary for it to refute a subsequent assertion. The oral testimony of the witnesses was reviewed by the Supreme Court, which determined that it was reliable and consistent. Both the Trial Court and the High Court agreed that eyewitnesses could be trusted as evidence. The defence attorney acknowledged the first informant’s presence at the site of the crime and the assault’s reality, which improved the prosecution’s case. Except for the concession on a legal issue, any concession or acknowledgement of fact by a defence attorney would be binding on his client.
The Court emphasized that the defence attorney’s recommendations to the witness and the witness’s response to those suggestions would be considered part of the evidence and used to assess the accused’s guilt. The res gestae principle, which states that a fact related to the fact at issue is pertinent and must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately afterwards, was also addressed by the Court. The Court determined that the act was committed spontaneously, without thought, in the throes of passion, without the perpetrator taking unfair advantage or acting unusually harshly or cruelly. The Court further ruled that as long as a person dies as a result of intentional bodily injury or injuries severe enough to result in death in the ordinary course of nature, the case falls under clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC, even if the offender did not plan to do so.
News Article Title: Supreme Court held:If a proposal made by the defense attorney to a witness during cross-examination is found to be incriminating, the accused would be bound by it and would be unable to flee: in light of BALU SUDAM KHALDE AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
[1] BALU SUDAM KHALDE AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1910 OF 2010
Case Title: BALU SUDAM KHALDE AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
NAME: SARAH GARIMA TIGGA; SEMESTER VI, COLLEGE: SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL (PUNE)
