Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.
Mahesh Chander, Appellant
Versus
The State of Delhi, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos.432 and 628 of 1979
Decided on 3-4-1991.
AND
Mohinder Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi, Respondent.
Held: A conspectus of the above decisions clearly shows that the power under Article 136 can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shakes the conscience or the court and the court within its restrictions imposed by itself has the undoubted power to interfere even with the findings of fact making no distinction between judgment of acquittal and conviction, if the High Court, in arriving at those findings, has acted, either perversely or otherwise improperly. (para 9)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Brother-in-law & father-in-law alleged to have murdered deceased for demand back from them of the ornaments given by deceaseds father in marriage to the wife of decreased - Incident alleged to be witnessed by PW 11 (13 years old girl) daughter of brother of deceased, & PW 1 a neighbour - FIR not mentioning names of accused Mahesh Chander and eye witness PW 11- FIR lodged late after witnesses consulted - Evidence of PW 11 and PW 1 found not creditWorthy - Presence of appellants in the house of deceased doubtful No adverse inference from their refusal to participate in identification parade - Conviction whether liable to be set aside? (Yes)
Held: Thus a meticulous examination of the entire evidence creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the evidence of the eye-witnesses. The credibility of the evidence is completely shaken and the circumstances attending the case also debilitate the entire prosecution case. To what extent falsehood in the evidence has taken root and spread over the entires prosecution case is hard to fathom. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court without making a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the evidence in the proper perspective and by overlooking the manifest errors and glaring infirmities surrounding the case have rendered their conclusions that the appellants are guilty of the offence charged. In spite of our best efforts and great deal of pondering over the matter, we are quite unable to agree with the conclusions arrived at by both the courts. Hence the irresistible and inescapable conclusion, in our considered opinion, is that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. (Para 24)
POWER UNDER ARTICLE 136 CAN BE INVOKED IN VERY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN A QUESTION OF LAW OF GENERAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ARISES OR A DECISION SHAKES CONSCIENCE OF THE COURT—WHERE NO COMPREHENSIVE AND DETAILED ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE MADE BY COURT HELD THAT SUPREME COURT CAN INTERFERE
JUDGMENT
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:— The above appeals by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India are directed against the correctness and legality of the judgment dated 4th May, 1979 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal AppealNo.323/76.
2. These two appellants were accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively before the 8th Additional Sessions Judge and they took their trial in Sessions Case No. 38/75 on the charge that on 28-5-1975 at about 3.30 a.m. in Pitam Pura within the jurisdiction of Punjabi Bagh Police Station both appellants in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Hanumant Singh, the deceased herein and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 302 read with 34 IPC. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:
The deceased Hanumant Singh was the son of Harkishan Singh (PW-6). At the time of the marriage of the deceased with Smt. Santosh (PW-4), PW-6 presented about 30 tolas of gold ornaments worth about Rs. 10,000/ - to PW-4. PW-4 on her first visit to the house of PW-6 brought all the ornaments and stayed there for 6 months. Then she went to her parents house wearing all those ornaments but left them with her father Dhani Ram and brother Mohinder Singh and all the ornaments were never returned by her father and brother. The deceased persistently asked his wife PW-4 to bring back the ornaments telling her that her father and brother had intended to grab the same. Though PW-4 went to her parents house many times to fetch the ornaments she was not successful. On 25-5-75 the deceased rebuked PW-4 and asked her to bring the ornaments from her parents, but PW-4 expressed her helplessness. So under the pressure of her husband, PW-4 went to her parents house on 25-5-75 at about 3.00 p. m. to get back the ornaments. As PW-4 had gone to her parents house, the deceased brought Km. Sunita (PW-11), the daughter of his brother Kartar Singh (PW-5) for household job and PW-11 stayed in the house of the deceased. On 27-5-75 at about 8.00 p.m. the appellant Mohinder Singh who is none other than the brother of PW-4 came to the house of deceased along with his friend appellant Mahesh Chander. The deceased and these two appellants took their bed in the outer court-yard. PW- 11 was sleeping in the verandah adjoining the outer court-yard.
3. At about 3.15 a.m. on the intervening night of 27/ 28-5-75 PW- 11 was woke-up and found the appellant Mahesh Chander sitting over the deceased and securing him firmly. While so, appellant Mohinder Singh gave a blow with a wooden pestle (Moosal) on the head of the deceased resulting in bleeding injuries. The deceased shouted "MAR DIYA, MAR DIYA, BACHAO BACHAO" (Being killed, being killed, save me, save me). PW-11 questioned both the appellants as to what they were doing to which the appellants threatened PW-11 saying that she would also be killed if she uttered any word. So PW-11 became panicky and kept silent. Then appellant Mahesh Chander dragged the deceased inside the house while appellant Mohinder Singh kept on hitting the deceased with that pestle. At this point of time PW- 11 escaped from the scene house and went to the house of her father (PW-5) to inform him. On the way PW-11 met PW-3 at some distance but despite enquiry by PW-3, PW- 11 could not give any reply and she was dumb-stricken. PW-1, a neighbour of the deceased who had earlier seen the deceased and both the appellants lying on different cots in the front courtyard of the house of the deceased and who was sleeping on the terrace of his house heard the voice of the deceased "MAR DIYA, BACHAO BACHAO" by about 3.30 a.m. From the upstairs of his terrace he saw the appellant Mahesh dragging the deceased inside the house and appellant Mohinder Singh beating the deceased with the wooden pestle (Ex.P. 1). By that time, PW-3 came by the side of the house of the deceased. Both PWs 1 and 3 shouted at the appellants to which both the appellants threatened the witnesses if they tried to intervene. Then PW-1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
