The court's decision emphasized the proper assessment and appreciation of evidence, and the absence of any error of a fundamental nature as grounds for refusing the application for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.

R. S. BINDRA, A. J. C. : This is an application by Severino Santos D'Souza under Article 134 of the Constitution of India for a certificate that the case is a fit one for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. The applicant was convicted under Sections 302 and 457 I. P. C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Margao, and sentenced to death on the former charge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge made a reference to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence, while the convict assailed the validity of his conviction and sentence by filing an appeal in this Court. By order dated 10-7-1967 this Court rejected the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence but on finding the accused guilty of the charge of murder awarded him the sentence of life imprisonment. A perusal of the grounds mentioned in the application for leave to appeal would reveal that the applicant challenges the correctness of the conviction under Section 302 I. P. C. only on the footing that this Court had not properly assessed and appreciated the evidence on the record. This is not a just criticism. The statements of all the witnesses examined by the prosecution as well as the accused were minutely scrutinised and then a concordant conclusion was arrived at by me and by my learned brother. As such no case is made out for issuing the certificate prayed for. Such a certificate if issued would imply that the assessment of the evidence made by this Court was not correct.

3. For the reasons stated above we dismiss the application. The convict to be informed.

4. V. S. JETLEY, J. C. :There are concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner is the murderer. Section 304 I. P. C. has no application. There is no difficult or substantial question of law or principle which should require further consideration by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The evidence has been appreciated and the petitioner properly convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. This is not one of those cases where something more than mere appreciation of evidence is contemplated. The discretion under Article 134 (1) (c) is to be exercised sparingly and with care. The Certificate applied for is not to be granted to afford another hearing on facts, unless there is some error of a fundamental nature. There is no such error in this case. The Supreme Court is not an ordinary Court of Criminal Appeal. I agree with my learned brother that this case is not a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter the Certificate applied for is refused, and the petition dismissed.