Summary
The appellant, nursing a grudge over an earlier quarrel and the refusal of money for treating his knee, attacked the deceased in daylight at a tobacco shop, threw chilli powder in his eyes and stabbed him in the chest and abdomen. Four eyewitnesses testified, corroborated by medical evidence, and the trial court and High Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Under Article 136 the Court does not reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless there is manifest illegality or a grave miscarriage of justice through misreading or ignoring material evidence. Non-recovery of the knife does not weaken a case resting on reliable ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, and minor contradictions in the eyewitnesses' accounts do not discredit them; only contradictions in material particulars do.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 with concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court convicting the appellant of murder.
- Whether non-seizure of the weapon, non-examination of the FIR scribe, delay in sending the FIR to court and alleged contradictions among eyewitnesses rendered the prosecution case doubtful.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaAn extraordinary jurisdiction exercised sparingly; concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence are not reappraised unless vitiated by error of law or procedure, misreading of evidence or disregard of judicial process causing serious injustice (Subedar, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai, Dalbir Kaur, Pappu). (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction and life sentence were upheld on direct eyewitness evidence corroborated by medical evidence, with motive from prior enmity. (¶¶ 1, 24, 25)
Held
- The Court does not function as a regular court of appeal in criminal cases; it interferes with concurrent findings only where the finding is based on no evidence, is perverse, rests on inadmissible evidence, or overlooks vital evidence, or where manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice is shown. (¶¶ 16, 18, 19, 20)
- A witness's testimony is not discarded for minor contradictions or omissions; only contradictions in material particulars can discredit it (Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary; State of M.P. v. Ramesh). (¶¶ 22, 23)
- Where ample ocular evidence is corroborated by medical evidence, mere non-recovery of the weapon does not materially affect the prosecution case; the attack in broad daylight was proved by direct evidence and the motive of prior enmity was apparent. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed.