Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Murder – On account of previous grudge, accused armed with knife, sprinkled chilli powder into the eyes of the agriculturalist and stabbed him on the chest and abdomen, resulting in grievous injuries which led to his death – Conviction u/s. 302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the courts below – Interference with – Held: Not called for – On facts and upon appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses and other material adduced by the prosecution, the courts below rightly convicted the accused for offence u/s. 302.
Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Scope of interference – Held: It is not the practice of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of examining whether the finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the Trial Court and the High Court are correct or not – It is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence, that this Court would interfere with such finding of fact – Normally, the High Court is a final court of appeal and this Court is only a court of special jurisdiction.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Article 136 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary jurisdiction which this Court exercises when it entertains an appeal by special leave and this jurisdiction, by its very nature, is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice. Article 136 is worded in wide terms and powers conferred under the said Article is not hedged by any technical hurdles. This overriding and exceptional power is, however, to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of cause of justice. Thus, when the judgment under appeal has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice by some misapprehension or misreading of evidence or by ignoring material evidence then this Court is not only empowered but is well expected to interfere to promote the cause of justice. It is not the practice of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of examining whether the finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the courts below are correct or not. It is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence, that this Court would interfere with such finding of fact. This Court does not function as a regular Court of Appeal in every criminal case. Normally, the High Court is a final court of appeal and this Court is only, court of special jurisdiction. [Para 14-16, 18][994-G-H; 995-A-C; 996-B]
Subedar v. The State of U.P. (1970) 2 SCC 445 : [1971]
1 SCR 826; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 : [1983] 3 SCR 280; Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC
158 : [1977] 1 SCR 280; Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) SCC OnLine SC 176 – referred to.
2.1 The submissions raised by the appellant are on the weaker side in relation to testimonies of prosecution witnesses as it has been contended that PW-1 to PW-4 are the supporters of Telugu Desam Party and their evidence were contradictory with respect to the nature of injuries inflicted upon the deceased, place of occurrence etc. The testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission. [Para 22][998-E-F]
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 104; State of MP v. Ramesh (2011) 4 SCC 786 : [2011]
5 SCR 1 – relied on.
2.2 The trial court as well as the High Court analysed the facts and evidence of the instant case and it is held that the prosecution has discharged its duties in proving the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. When there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, mere non-recovery of weapon from the appellant would not materially affect the case of the prosecution. If the testimony of an eye witness is otherwise found trustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be disbelieved and rejected merely because certain insignificant, normal or natural contradictions have appeared into his testimony. The deceased has been attacked by the appellant in broad daylight and there is direct evidence available to prove the same and the motive behind the attack is also apparent considering there was previous enmity between the appellant and PW-1. [Para 24][999-D-G]
2.3 Having considered the facts of the instant case and upon appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses and other material adduced by the prosecution, the trial court as well as the High Court were right in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, there is no ground warranting interference with the findings of the trial court and the High Court. [Para 25][999-H; 1000-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.