MEKALA SIVAIAH versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[2022] 6 S.C.R. 989

MEKALA SIVAIAH

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Criminal Appeal No. 2016 of 2013)

JULY 15, 2022

[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Murder – On account of previousgrudge, accused armed with knife, sprinkled chilli powder into theeyes of the agriculturalist and stabbed him on the chest andabdomen, resulting in grievous injuries which led to his death –Conviction u/s. 302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by thecourts below – Interference with – Held: Not called for – On factsand upon appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses and othermaterial adduced by the prosecution, the courts below rightlyconvicted 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 forthe purpose of examining whether the finding of fact concurrentlyarrived 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 manifestillegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account ofmisreading or ignoring material evidence, that this Court wouldinterfere with such finding of fact – Normally, the High Court is afinal court of appeal and this Court is only court of specialjurisdiction.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Article 136 of the Constitution of India is anextraordinary jurisdiction which this Court exercises when itentertains an appeal by special leave and this jurisdiction, by itsvery nature, is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied thatit is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or seriousmiscarriage of justice. Article 136 is worded in wide terms andpowers conferred under the said Article is not hedged by anytechnical hurdles. This overriding and exceptional power is,however, to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of

Acause of justice. Thus, when the judgment under appeal hasresulted in grave miscarriage of justice by some misapprehensionor misreading of evidence or by ignoring material evidence thenthis Court is not only empowered but is well expected to interfereto promote the cause of justice. It is not the practice of this Courtto re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of examiningBwhether the finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the courtsbelow are correct or not. It is only in rare and exceptional caseswhere there is some manifest illegality or grave and seriousmiscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoringmaterial evidence, that this Court would interfere with such findingCof fact. This Court does not function as regular Court of Appealin every criminal case. Normally, the High Court is final courtof appeal and this Court is only, court of special jurisdiction. [Para14-16, 18][994-G-H; 995-A-C; 996-B]

Subedar v. The State of U.P. (1970) 2 SCC 445 : [1971]D1 SCR 826; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. Stateof Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 : [1983] 3 SCR 280;Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC158 : [1977] 1 SCR 280; Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2022) SCC OnLine SC 176 – referred to.

E2.1 The submissions raised by the appellant are on theweaker side in relation to testimonies of prosecution witnessesas it has been contended that PW-1 to PW-4 are the supportersof Telugu Desam Party and their evidence were contradictorywith respect to the nature of injuries inflicted upon the deceased,place of occurrence etc. The testimony of witness in criminalFtrial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictionsor omission. [Para 22][998-E-F]

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State ofMaharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR104; State of MP v. Ramesh (2011) 4 SCC 786 : [2011]G5 SCR 1 – relied on.

2.2 The trial court as well as the High Court analysed thefacts and evidence of the instant case and it is held that theprosecution has discharged its duties in proving the guilt of theappellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyondH

reasonable doubt. When there is ample ocular evidencecorroborated by medical evidence, mere non-recovery of weaponfrom the appellant would not materially affect the case of theprosecution. If the testimony of an eye witness is otherwise foundtrustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be disbelieved andrejected merely because certain insignificant, normal or naturalcontradictions have appeared into his testimony. The deceasedhas been attacked by the appellant in broad daylight and there isdirect evidence available to prove the same and the motive behindthe attack is also apparent considering there was previous enmitybetween the appellant and PW-1. [Para 24][999-D-G]

2.3 Having considered the facts of the instant case and uponappreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses and other materialadduced by the prosecution, the trial court as well as the HighCourt were right in convicting the appellant for the offence underSection 302 IPC. Therefore, there is no ground warrantinginterference with the findings of the trial court and the High Court.[Para 25][999-H; 1000-A-B]

Case Law Reference

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.2016 of 2013.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.06.2012 of the High Courtof Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. Appeal No. 811of 2008.

Ravindra S. Garia, Adv. for the Appellant.

Mahfooz A. Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef,T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, K. V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. RajeswariMukherjee, Advs. for the Respondent.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered byKRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgmentand order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature ofAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’)Bin Criminal Appeal No.811/2008, whereby the High Court has dismissedthe criminal appeal and upheld the judgment dated 04.04.2008 passed bythe Court of Sessions Judge at Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘TrialCourt) whereunder, the appellant was convicted for the offence underSection 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’)Cand was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay afine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for threemonths.

2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are asfollows:

On 06.09.2006, the deceased (father of PW-1) and PW-1 went tothe 14[th] mile centre of Lemalle Village to sell their vegetables. WhilePW-1 was getting the vegetables weighed, the deceased crossed theroad and went to the shop of PW-3 to purchase tobacco leaves. PW-2and PW-4 were also present at the place of occurrence. Having seenEthe deceased, the appellant, armed with knife, came to the shop ofPW-3 and sprinkled chilli powder into the eyes of the deceased, andstabbed him on the chest and abdomen, resulting in grievous injuries.The appellant immediately fled from the spot after seeing PW-1 to 4.The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital Amaravathi, wherethe doctors declared him dead.F

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report given by PW-1, PW-7registered the case being FIR No. 120/2006 dated 06.09.2006 at PSAmaravathi for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter,PW-8 and PW-9 visited the place of occurrence, held an inquest overthe dead body of the deceased, examined the eyewitnesses, arrestedGthe appellant, and filed charge sheet against him. On 26.12.2007, chargesunder Section 302 IPC were framed and the appellant pleaded not guiltyand claimed trial.

4. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution examinednine witnesses and there was no oral or documentary evidence adducedHby the defence side.

�PW-1: Madhirapalli Srinivasa Rao, Son of the deceased

��PW-2: Shaik China John

� PW-3: Shaik Subhani, owner of the tobacco shop

�PW-4: Kovvuri Venkateswara Rao, belong to the same villageas the deceased.

�PW-5: Dr. G. Peter Paul, who conducted post-mortem on07.09.2006.

�PW-6: Kalapala Venkaiah, Panchayat Secretary of EndrolVillage.

�PW-7: I. Govindarajulu, Sub-Inspector of Police, DistrictCrime Records Bureau.

�PW-8: T. Ravindra Babu, Inspector of Police.

�PW-9: K. Jagadishwara Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police.

5. The Trial Court after analysing the statement made by theprosecution witnesses, vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2008 heldthe appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencedhim to imprisonment for life.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 811 of2008 before the High Court challenging the Trial Court’s order ofconviction and sentencing. Vide judgment and order dated 22.06.2012,the High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and observedthat there is no iota of doubt in the case of the prosecution and therefore,the prosecution has discharged its burden in proving the guilt of theaccused for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonabledoubt.

7. We have heard Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Learned Counselappearing for the appellant and Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, Learned Counselappearing for the State.

8. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Learned Counsel appearing for theappellant vehemently submitted that the weapon (knife) alleged to havebeen used by the appellant in the commission of the offence was notseized by the police and non-seizure of the said weapon is fatal to thecase of the prosecution. It was further submitted that the prosecution

Afailed to examine the scribe of the FIR and that there was delay insending the FIR to the court.

9. It was further submitted that the presence of eyewitnesses inthe place of occurrence is very doubtful and incredible in thecircumstances and becomes further incredible as none of the so-calledBeyewitnesses is even able to describe the weapon of the offence, despitethe prosecution case being that the appellant was apprehended by thecrowd but still he managed to run away. It was further submitted thatthe inquest report clearly shows that the alleged eyewitnesses merelyexpressed their doubt with respect to the appellant that, due to previousenmity the appellant might have killed the victim and this shows theyConly had suspicion and were not witnesses to the incident.

10. It was further submitted that the falsity of the prosecutioncase and the theory of the appellant running away in the backdrop of hisreceiving treatment for such serious injury in his leg that he had becomeinvalid for doing labour work and was receiving treatment for theDimmediately preceding last six months further makes the case againstthe appellant extremely doubtful.

11. Per contra, Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, Learned Counsel for theRespondent State has duly supported the conviction and sentencing ofthe Appellant with reference to the material on record and as regardsEthe conviction of the Appellant, it was submitted that the judgment passedby the Trial Court and the High Court after thorough appreciation of theevidence does not suffer from any infirmity and call for no interference.There are no grounds made for reversal of the conviction.

12. It was further submitted that the conviction of the Appellant inFthe present case is based on the testimony of four eye-witnesses andthe same is absolutely consistent and reliable.

13. We have carefully considered the submissions made at thebar and perused the materials placed on record.

14. Before adverting to the merits of the contention raised, it isGimportant to reiterate that Article 136 of the Constitution of India is anextraordinary jurisdiction which this Court exercises when it entertainsan appeal by special leave and this jurisdiction, by its very nature, isexercisable only when this Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interferein order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice.

15. It is well settled by judicial pronouncement that Article 136 isworded in wide terms and powers conferred under the said Article is nothedged by any technical hurdles. This overriding and exceptional poweris, however, to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of causeof justice. Thus, when the judgment under appeal has resulted in gravemiscarriage of justice by some misapprehension or misreading of evidenceor by ignoring material evidence then this Court is not only empoweredbut is well expected to interfere to promote the cause of justice.

16. It is not the practice of this Court to re-appreciate the evidencefor the purpose of examining whether the finding of fact concurrentlyarrived at by the Trial Court and the High Court are correct or not. It isonly in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegalityor grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading orignoring material evidence, that this Court would interfere with suchfinding of fact.

17. Reference may be made to the judgment of two-Judge Benchof this Court in the case of Subedar Vs. The State of U.P.[1] wherein thisCourt, while considering the scope of interference with the concurrentfindings based on proper appreciation of evidence, has observed asunder :-

“This Court undoubtedly does not normally proceed to reviewand reappraise for itself the evidence in criminal cases whenhearing appeals under Article 136. But when the judgmentunder appeal has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice bysome misapprehension or mistake in the reading of evidenceor by ignoring material evidence- then this Court is notonly empowered but is expected to interfere to promote thecause of justice.”

18. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat[2],a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that this Court does not interferewith the concurrent findings of fact unless it is established:

i.That the finding is based on no evidence; or

ii.That the finding is perverse, it being such as no reasonableperson could arrive at even if the evidence was taken at itsface value; or

1 (1970) 2 SCC 445

2 (1983) 3 SCC 217

Aiii. The finding is based and built on inadmissible evidence whichevidence, excluded from vision would negate the prosecutioncase or substantially discredit or impair it, or

iv. Some vital piece of evidence which would tilt the balance infavour of the convict has been overlooked, disregarded orBwrongly discarded.

This Court does not function as regular Court of Appeal in everycriminal case. Normally, the High Court is final court of appeal andthis Court is only court of special jurisdiction. This Court would nottherefore reappraise the evidence to determine the correctness of findingsCunless there are exceptional circumstances where there is manifestillegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice, for example, theforms of legal process are disregarded or principles of natural justiceare violated or substantial and grave injustice has otherwise resulted.

19. The principles governing the interference by this Court in aDcriminal appeal by way of special leave were further enumerated inDalbir Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab[3]as under :-

“(1)that this Court would not interfere with the concurrentfinding of fact based on pure appreciation of evidenceeven if it were to take different view on the evidence;

E(2)that the Court will not normally enter into areappraisement or review of the evidence, unless theassessment of the High Court is vitiated by an errorof law or procedure or is based on error of record,misreading of evidence or is inconsistent with theFevidence, for instance, where the ocular evidence istotally inconsistent with the medical evidence and soon;

(3)that the Court would not enter into credibility of theevidence with view to substitute its own opinion forthat of the High Court;G

(4)that the Court would interfere where the High Courthas arrived at finding of fact in disregard of ajudicial process, principles of natural justice or fairhearing or has acted in violation of mandatory

H3 (1976) 4 SCC 158

provision of law or procedure resulting in seriousprejudice or injustice to the accused;

(5)this Court might also interfere where on the provedfacts wrong inferences of law have been drawn orwhere the conclusions of the High Court are manifestlyperverse and based on no evidence.”

20. The scope and width of appeals under Article 136 has beenelaborately articulated by three-Judge Bench of this Court in PappuVs. State of Uttar Pradesh[4]. This judgment authored by one of us(Hon’ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.) after noticing catena of judgments onthe issue, the three-Judge Bench summarized the principles as under :-

“101. In summation of what has been noticed hereinabove, itis but clear that as against any judgment/final order orsentence in criminal proceeding of the High Court, regularappeals to this Court are envisaged in relation to theeventualities specified in Article 134of the Constitution ofIndia and Section 2of the Act of 1970. The present one is nota matter covered thereunder and the present appeals are byspecial leave in terms of Article 136 of the Constitution ofIndia. In such an appeal by special leave, where the TrialCourt and the High Court have concurrently returned thefindings of fact after appreciation of evidence, each and everyfinding of fact cannot be contested nor such an appeal couldbe dealt with as if another forum for reappreciation ofevidence. Of course, if the assessment by the Trial Court andthe High Court could be said to be vitiated by any error oflaw or procedure or misreading of evidence or in disregardto the norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudiceor injustice, this Court may, and in appropriate cases would,interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage ofjustice but, such course is adopted only in rare andexceptional cases of manifest illegality. Tersely put, it is not amatter of regular appeal. This Court would not interfere withthe concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciationof evidence nor it is the scope of these appeals that this Courtwould enter into reappreciation of evidence so as to take

4 2022 SCC OnLine SC 176

EFG

Aview different than that taken by the Trial Court and approvedby the High Court.”

21. Coming to the facts of present case at hand, the deceasedwas an agriculturalist and on 14.03.2006, during quarrel betweenPW-1 and the appellant, PW-1 gave beating to the appellant with aBstick. Thereupon, the appellant gave report against PW-1 in Amaravathipolice station and the same was registered as Crime No. 35 of 2006 forthe offence punishable under Section 324 and 506 of IPC. Aftercompletion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against PW-1and the same is pending. In that connection, the appellant demandedmoney from PW-1 for treatment of his knee to which both the deceasedCas well as PW-1 agreed for payment but on later date, the deceased aswell as PW-1 refused to pay the appellant. Due to inability to get atreatment, the appellant became invalid from labour work and that resultedin appellant developing grudge against PW-1 and his father(deceased).Thereafter, on seeing the deceased coming towards the tobacco shop ofDPW-3 on 06.09.2006, the appellant stabbed him on the chest and abdomencausing grievous injuries to him which ultimately lead to the death of thedeceased.22. The contentions raised by the Appellant are on the weakerside in relation to testimonies of prosecution witnesses as it has beenEcontended that PW-1 to PW-4 are the supporters of Telugu Desam Partyand their evidence were contradictory with respect to the nature of injuriesinflicted upon the deceased, place of occurrence etc. The testimony of awitness in criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minorcontradictions or omission as observed by this Court in NarayanChetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra[5], whereinFwhile considering the issue of contradictions in the testimony, whileappreciating the evidence in criminal trial, it was held that onlycontradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions canbe ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. In paragraph 42of the judgment, it has been held as under :-G“42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction inmaterial particulars can be used to discredit the testimony ofthe witness. The omission in the police statement by itself wouldnot necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable.

H5 (2000) 8 SCC 457

When the version given by the witness in the court is differentin material particulars from that disclosed in his earlierstatements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful andnot otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear inthe statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes playsfalse and the sense of observation differ from person toperson. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to beof trivial details, as in the present case, the same would notcause any dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if there iscontradiction of statement of witness on any material point,that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of suchwitness.”

23. The same view stands reiterated in the concurring opinionexpressed by this Court in State of MP Vs. Ramesh[6].

24. The facts and evidence in present case has been squarelyanalyzed by both Trial Court as well the High Court and the same can besummarized as follows:

i.The prosecution has discharged its duties in proving the guiltof the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyondreasonable doubt.

ii.When there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medicalevidence, mere non-recovery of weapon from the appellantwould not materially affect the case of the prosecution.

iii. If the testimony of an eye witness is otherwise foundtrustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be disbelieved andrejected merely because certain insignificant, normal or naturalcontradictions have appeared into his testimony.

iv. The deceased has been attacked by the appellant in broaddaylight and there is direct evidence available to prove thesame and the motive behind the attack is also apparentconsidering there was previous enmity between the appellantand PW-1.

25. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case injuxtaposition with the judgments referred to above and upon appreciation

[2022] 6 S.C.R.

Aof evidence of the eyewitnesses and other material adduced by theprosecution, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were right inconvicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore,we do not find any ground warranting interference with the findings ofthe Trial Court and the High Court.

B26. As result, appeal stands dismissed.

Nidhi Jain

Appeal dismissed.