Case Name : Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs The State of Maharashtra
Case Reference: (0000) 0 SCR 00 :
Neutral Citation:
Case Number: Crl A 1910/2010
Court: Supreme Court
Bench: 02
Coram: Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala (Author)
Date: 29.03.2023
Principles on appreciation of evidence
13 Principles for appreciation of ocular evidence (Para 25)
05 Principles for appreciation of injured eye witness (Para 26)
Scope of interference under Article 136
Scope of interference under Article 136 (Para 30)
Suggestion by defence counsel
Suggestion made by defence counsel binds the accused (Paras 38-40) Suggestions by itself cannot hold an accused guilty (Para 40) However, accused cannot be made to have admitted documents which the prosecution has to prove (Para 41)
Multiple defences in certain cases permissible
Suggestion by defence lawyer as to consent by prosecutrix does not necessarily amount to admission (Para 45)
Object of cross examination
Main object of cross examination (Paras 43,44)
Res Gestae
The fact (/evidence) must be almost contemporaneous to the act. (Paras 48, 49)
Section 300 - Exception 4
Difference between murder and culpable homicide (Para 54)
Conditions to bring act within Exception 4 (Paras 56-59)
Refer also: Tarun Bora vs State of Assam, (2002) Cri LJ 4076 Rakesh Kumar vs State of Haryana, (1987) 2 SCC 34 State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh, (1996) SCC (Cri) 316 Sukhar vs State of UP, (1999) 9 SCC 507 State of Andhra Pradesh vs Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382 Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab Parkash Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh, (2004) 11 SCC 381
See also: Constitution, Article 136 IPC - Section 376 Evidence, Section 6 Evidence, Section 7 IPC, Section 300
PDF: Balu Sudam Khalde vs State of Maharashtra, Crl A 1910-2010 (SC).pdf