1. Conviction for murder under Section 302, IPC — stabbing of deceased — appeal against concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 572
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, Krishna Murari, JJ.
Mekala Sivaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2016 of 2013
Decided On : 15-07-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – When there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, mere non-recovery of weapon from appellant would not materially affect case of prosecution.
(2) Article 136 is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice.
(1) Murder – When there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, mere non-recovery of weapon from appellant would not materially affect case of prosecution.
(2) Article 136 is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Prosecution has discharged its duties in proving guilt of 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 appellant would not materially affect case of prosecution – If testimony of an eye witness is otherwise found trustworthy and reliable, same cannot be disbelieved and rejected merely because certain insignificant, normal or natural contradictions have appeared into his testimony – Trial Court as well as High Court were right in convicting appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 24, 25 and 26)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appellate Jurisdiction – Article 136 is worded in wide terms and powers conferred under 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 – When 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 cause of justice – It is not practice of this Court to re-appreciate evidence for the purpose of examining whether finding of fact concurrently arrived at by Trial Court and 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 – Article 136 is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.811/2008, whereby the High Court has dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the judgment dated 04.04.2008 passed by Trial Court whereunder, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, AOR(SCLSC) Ms. Sakshi Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, AOR(SCLSC) Ms. Sakshi Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Non-seizure of weapon — non-examination of FIR scribe — delay in FIR — reliability of eyewitnesses — physical incapacity of accused. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Concurrent findings of fact not normally disturbed under Article 136 unless manifest illegality exists — minor contradictions in witness testimony do not discredit prosecution case. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. Concurrent findings of fact are not interfered with under Article 136 unless based on no evidence, perverse, or resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
5. Appeal dismissed — conviction and sentence upheld. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. When can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a criminal appeal under Article 136?
Interference is rare and occurs only to prevent grave miscarriage of justice, such as when findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or ignore vital evidence that would tilt the balance in favor of the convict. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
7. Does the non-recovery of the murder weapon necessarily weaken the prosecution's case?
No, when there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, the mere non-recovery of the weapon from the accused does not materially affect the prosecution's case. (Para 24 )
8. Can the testimony of an eyewitness be rejected due to minor contradictions or omissions?
No, minor contradictions or omissions in trivial details do not render testimony unreliable, as memory can fail and observations differ; only contradictions in material particulars can be used to discredit a witness. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’ ) in Criminal Appeal No.811/2008, whereby the High Court has dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the judgment dated 04.04.2008 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge at Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court) whereunder, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows:
On 06.09.2006, the deceased (father of PW-1) and PW-1 went to the 14th mile centre of Lemalle Village to sell their vegetables. While PW-1 was getting the vegetables weighed, the deceased crossed the road and went to the shop of PW-3 to purchase tobacco leaves. PW-2 and PW-4 were also present at the place of occurrence. Having seen the deceased, the appellant, armed with a knife, came to the shop of PW-3 and sprinkled chilli powder into the eyes of the deceased, and stabbed 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, where the doctors declared him dead.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid report given by PW-1, PW-7 registered the case being FIR No. 120/2006 dated 06.09.2006 at PS Amaravathi for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, PW-8 and PW-9 visited the place of occurrence, held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased, examined the eyewitnesses, arrested the appellant, and filed charge sheet against him. On 26.12.2007, charges under Section 302 IPC were framed and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and there was no oral or documentary evidence adduced by 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 village as the deceased.
PW-5: Dr. G. Peter Paul, who conducted post-mortem on 07.09.2006.
PW-6: Kalapala Venkaiah, Panchayat Secretary of Endrol Village.
PW-7: I. Govindarajulu, Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime 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 the prosecution witnesses, vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2008 held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
6. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2008 before the High Court challenging the Trial Court’s order of conviction and sentencing. Vide judgment and order dated 22.06.2012, the High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and observed that 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 the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt.
7. We have heard Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, Learned Counsel appearing for the State.
8. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the weapon (knife) alleged to have been used by the appellant in the commission of the offence was not seized by the police and non-seizure of the said weapon is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It was further submitted that the prosecution failed to examine the scribe of the FIR and that there was a delay in sending the FIR to the court.
9. It w
