Saturday, 10 June 2017

Whether court can convict accused on basis of testimony of hostile witness?

 The evidence of a witness who has been declared
hostile can be relied if there are some other
material on the basis of which said evidence can be
corroborated. More so, that part of evidence of a
witness as contained in examination-in-chief, which

remains unshaken even after cross-examination, is
fully reliable even though the witness has been
declared hostile.
20. It is relevant to note that the trial began
against six accused persons. Shivlochan-PW.13 in his
examination-in-chief took the name of Devraj alone
who was stated to have assaulted Devi Prasad.
Shivlochan did not mention in his
examination-in-chief about the presence of other
accused which may be a reason for the prosecution to
get the witness declared as hostile. It is, however,
relevant to note that even in the cross-examination
the witness repeated that he heard Devraj saying
“Maro Sale Ko” who had assaulted Devi Prasad and Devi
Prasad @ Prachar cried “Bachao Bachao”. The factum of
assault by Devraj was throughout maintained by the
witness. Thus, even though witness was declared as
hostile witness his evidence so far as the role of
Devraj is unshaken. Similarly, evidence of Ajar
Das-PW.16, where in his examination-in-chief he
stated that accused Devraj gave three lathi blows to
Devi Prasad which was seen by him. The witness

further stated that Devraj threatened him to run away
otherwise he shall also be assaulted. Even after the
witness was declared hostile he maintained his stand
that he forbidden Devraj from assaulting Devi Prasad.
He further stated that he saw Devraj and Dinda
assaulting Devi Prasad in the night and on the next
day the dead body was found below Rakhet Pulia. The
witness further stated that due to land dispute
Devraj and Dinda had assaulted Devi Prasad. In
cross-examination he voluntarily stated that he had
seen the accused giving three lathi blows. Further,
he stated that he did not see that whom he has beaten
because it was dark. The statement in
cross-examination in no manner dilute the value of
the evidence. It was Devi Prasad who received injury
whose dead body was found next day morning. The
statement that it was Devraj who gave three lathi
blows obviously referred to lathi blow to Devi
Prasad-deceased. Thus, we conclude that in spite of
witnesses PW.13 and PW.16 having been declared as
hostile witnesses their evidence that Devraj
assaulted Devi Prasad is unshaken and has rightly

been relied by the courts below in recording
conviction.
REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.423 OF 2015
DEVRAJ .
 V
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH .
Dated:JULY 25, 2016.
Citation:(2016) 13 SCC366

This appeal has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 7th January, 2013 of the High
Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 780 of
2008. The First Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions
Trial No.396 of 2006 had convicted the
appellant-Devraj and Dinda @ Deenanath under
Section 302 and 201 IPC and awarded imprisonment for
life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the
charge levelled under Section 302 IPC and RI for
three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for
the charge under Section 201 IPC. Four other accused
were acquitted by the First Additional Sessions

Judge. The High Court in Criminal Appeal No.780 of
2008 although acquitted the accused Dinda @
Deenanath, it confirmed the conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 IPC. The High Court has
set aside the conviction and sentence of Devraj under
Section 201 IPC.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the
High Court, Devraj has come up in this appeal.
3. The prosecution case in brief is:
There existed a land dispute between the
deceased Devi Prasad @ Prachar and Devraj, Dinda @
Deenanath. Devraj and Dinda @ Deenanath are real
brothers whereas deceased Devi Prasad was their
cousin brother. On 26th June, 2006, after 8 p.m. when
deceased Devi Prasad was going along with one Ratan
Singh Guruji in a motorcycle he was intercepted by
five persons near pakkar tree. The deceased was
beaten by geda and lathi by Devraj, Dinda and others
and after killing him his body along with motorcycle
was thrown below Rakhet Pulia. The body was seen on
2Page 3
next day morning by a boy of village who informed the
wife of the deceased. Thereafter, First Information
Report was lodged by Anita Bai at 10.15 a.m. on 27th
June, 2006. Police official came on the spot prepared
death panchnama and site plan. The statements from
various persons were recorded. The charges were
framed against six accused under Section 147,
148,149, 302 and 201 IPC. The accused Sheonath, Thema
@ Vishwanath, Devraj, Dinda @ Deenanath, Khoru and
Dayalal were sent for trial.
4. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and
placed reliance on various exhibits. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge after examining the
statements of witnesses held charges under Section
302 and 201 IPC proved against accused Devraj and
Dinda @ Deenanath, other four accused were acquitted
by the Trial Court.
5. The Trial Court placed heavy reliance on
witnesses PW.8-Ratan Singh, PW.13-Shivlochan and
PW.16-Ajar Das who were found to be eye-witnesses.
The statements of witnesses were found corroboration
from other evidence. Although witnesses

PW.13-Shivlochan and PW.16-Ajar Das were declared
hostile witnesses and they were cross-examined but
the Trial Court relied on their statements having
found to be truthful and worth reliance.
6. Both Devraj and Dinda @ Deenanath filed an
appeal before the High Court. The High Court vide its
judgment and order dated 7th January, 2013 acquitted
Dinda @ Deenanath from all the charges. However, it
confirmed the conviction of the appellant-Devraj
under Section 302 IPC while setting aside the
conviction under Section 201 IPC.
7. Devraj is before us in this appeal. Only
Devraj being in this appeal, we need to confine our
discussion with regard to the evidence against Devraj
only and as to whether the courts below on valid
materials and evidence were justified in convicting
Devraj.
8. We have heard Shri Akshat Shrivastava,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri
C.D. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for
the State.
4Page 5
9. Learned counsel for the appellant in support
of the appeal contended that the courts below have
relied on three eye-witnesses namely PW.8-Ratan
Singh, PW.13-Shivlochan and PW.16- Ajar Das.
PW.13-Shivlochan and PW.16-Ajar Das having been
declared hostile witnesses, their evidence could not
have been relied and PW.8-Ratan Singh, another
eye-witness having not stated that Devraj had
assaulted the deceased hence there was no evidence
worth name to convict the accused-Devraj. It is
further contended that even the eye-witnesses, PW.13
and PW.16 had only stated that they have heard the
voice of Devraj, the prosecution ought to have proved
that witnesses had recognised the voice of Devraj and
Devi Prasad. The witnesses have only stated that
Devraj had assaulted Devi Prasad @ Prachar by Danda.
It has not been proved that injury by Danda, if any,
was sufficient to kill Devi Prasad. The Doctor in his
evidence has stated that injuries which were
sustained by Devi Prasad could be possible by an
accident. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that it was Devraj who killed
5Page 6
Devi Prasad @ Prachar. There was contradiction
between the statements of eye-witnesses, which has
not been adverted to by the courts below.
10. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the State supporting the judgment of courts below
contended that incriminating evidence on the record
are sufficient to convict the accused-Devraj. All the
eye-witnesses have proved the presence of
accused-Devraj. The evidence of PW.13 and PW.16 was
wholly reliable and even if they were declared
hostile witnesses their examination-in-chief and the
cross-examination does not in any manner weaken the
evidentiary value of their evidence that Devraj
assaulted Devi Prasad on the late evening of 26th
June, 2006. Several witnesses have testified that
there was land dispute between deceased-Devi Prasad
and Devraj and there being animosity between Devi
Prasad and Devraj there was a motive to kill the
deceased. The judgment of the Trial Court is based on
correct appreciation of evidence. The High Court also
having examined the statements of witnesses and
having come to the conclusion that there was
6Page 7
sufficient material on record to convict Devraj there
is no ground for interference by this Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. It is well settled that this
Court shall not reappraise the evidence and interfere
with concurrent findings of facts recorded by the
courts below which are sufficient for upholding the
conviction of the accused.
11. We have considered the arguments made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the records. The original records of the Trial Court
produced before us including the statements of
witnesses have also been perused by us.
12. In the present case the deceased-Devi Prasad was
going along with Ratan Guruji from his house on a
motorcycle on Panchayat Road at about 8 p.m.
Deceased left his house on a motorcycle with Ratan
Singh Guruji as pillion rider for dropping Ratan
Singh at village Chendra. On the Panchayat Road near
pakkar tree, the deceased was intercepted and was
asked to stop the motorcycle by five persons. The
quarrel took place between the deceased and his
7Page 8
interceptors. The witnesses have specially mentioned
that Devraj and Dinda @ Deenanath were present on
the spot and Devraj hit and gave lathi blows on
deceased. The witnesses who saw the deceased being
assaulted are Ratan Guruji, Shivlochan and Ajar Das.
It is useful to re-capitulate the statements of the
above eye-witnesses. Ratan Singh-PW.8 has stated that
he had gone to Devi Prasad's house and after 8 p.m.
he along with Devi Prasad left his house on a
motorcycle and as soon as they reached at some
distance from his house five persons were standing
near the pakkar tree. Those persons got the vehicle
stopped. Dinda came towards him (Ratan Guruji), he
was having a torch and switched on the torch. In the
meanwhile, a person ran from back side with a stick
and spoke “kill him, what are you looking' and he
gave stick blow to Devi Prasad. On receiving injury
Devi Prasad ran towards back side crying “save save”.
Ratan Singh further stated that Shivlochan came on
the spot and told him to come with him as there was
risk there. PW.8-Ratan Singh further stated that
there was a land dispute between Devi Prasad and Dev
8Page 9
Raj.
13. Shivlochan-PW.13 is a witness whose house is
situated near the place where Devi Prasad was
stopped. The Exhibit No.P.7 which is a site plan
prepared at the spot clearly indicates the house of
Shivlochan is at indication mark No.5. Shivlochan in
his statement has stated that he knew both the
accused-Devraj and deceased-Devi Prasad. Shivlochan
belongs to the same village Sayar Rai of which
accused and deceased belonged. In
examination-in-chief, Shivlochan stated that he was
returning to his house from his sister's house when
he saw the deceased-Devi Prasad near pakkar tree.
Devraj came from the front and some dialogues entered
between them. Thereafter, Devraj assaulted Devi
Prasad by wood or stone. Thereafter, Devi Prasad
started running. The witness was cross-examined on
behalf of the accused and in his cross-examination he
stated that he heard the voice of Devraj who was
saying “Maro Sale Ko” and it was Devraj who hit the
Devi Prasad @ Prachar and Prachar shouted “Bachao
Bachao” which he heard.
9Page 10
14. Another eye-witness PW.16-Ajar Das has been
examined by the prosecution. The house of Ajar Das is
also near to the scene of occurrence which is shown
in Exhibit No.P-7 as indication mark 8. Ajar Das
stated that he knew the deceased and the accused.
Deceased Devi Prasad was cousin brother of Devraj and
Dinda @ Deenanath. The quarrel had earlier taken
place between Devi Prasad and Devraj. He was
returning to his house from village Gangapur and when
he was going through Panchayat Road adjoining
pakkar tree near Jam tree accused Devi Prasad had
given three lathi blows to Devi Prasad. Accused
Devraj told Shivlochan that he should run away
otherwise he will also be assaulted on which he ran
away. The prosecution took permission of the Court
for asking question after declaring the witness as
hostile. On which the witness again stated that he
has forbidden Devraj from beating Devi Prasad. He
further stated that he had also seen that while
beating Devi Prasad, Devraj was saying that he has
been tortured throughout life. Devraj and Dinda had
beaten the deceased in the night and the dead body of
10Page 11
Devi Parasad was found below the Rakhet Pulia in the
morning. He further stated that due to land dispute
between Devi Prasad and Devraj and Dinda, they
entered into “marpeet”. In the cross-examination he
stated that he has seen accused-Devraj giving three
lathi blows. However, he does not know to whom the
blows were given since it was dark. There is
overwhelming evidence on the record to prove the land
dispute between Devraj, Dinda with Devi
Prasad-deceased.
15. Anita Bai-PW.7 wife of the deceased, Ratan
Singh-PW.8, Shivlochan-PW.13, Shivram-PW.18,Ram
Kewal-PW.3 and Narayan Prasad-PW.10 all had stated
that there was a land dispute between the parties.
Witness PW.10-Narayan Prasad had also stated that
with regard to the land dispute the leg of Devraj was
broken and there was animosity between Devi Prasad
and accused-Devraj and Dinda. The arguments which
have been raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant that PW.13 and PW.16 having been declared
as hostile witnesses their evidence ought not to have
been relied by the courts below more so when Ratan
11Page 12
Singh another eye-witness does not say that deceased
Devi Prasad was assaulted by Devraj. At this juncture
it is relevant to examine the question as to what
extent evidence of hostile witnesses can be relied by
the Court while recording conviction.
16. In a three-Judge bench judgment of this Court in
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389,
the witness Jagat Singh was declared hostile. The
appellant was convicted under Section 165A IPC. It
was contended that the whole case is destroyed since
the witness was declared as hostile. In the aforesaid
decision the Court held that there is no legal bar
to base a conviction upon his testimony if
corroborated by other reliable evidence. Following
was stated in paragraph 8:
“8. We have carefully perused the
evidence of Jagat Singh, who was
examined in the trial after more than a
year of detection of the case. The
prosecution could have even avoided
requesting for permission to
cross-examine the witness under Section
154 of the Evidence Act. But the fact
that the court gave permission to the
prosecutor to cross-examine his own
witness, thus characterising him as,
what is described as a hostile witness,
12Page 13
does not completely efface his evidence.
The evidence remains admissible in the
trial and there is no legal bar to base
a conviction upon his testimony if
corroborated by other reliable evidence.
We are satisfied in this case that the
evidence of Jagat Singh, but for whose
prompt assistance the case would not
have seen the light of day and whose
statement had immediately been recorded
by the D.S.P., is amply corroborated by
other evidence mentioned above to
inspire confidence in his testimony.
Apart from that the fact of recovery of
the gold coins in the pocket of the
appellant gave a seal of finality to the
truth of the charge against the
appellant. If Jagat Singh had accepted
the bribe he would have been guilty
under Section 161 IPC. There is,
therefore, clear abetment by the
appellant of the offence under Section
161 IPC and the ingredients of Section
165-A IPC are established against him.”
17. Another judgment which needs to be noted is
Khujji v. State of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627. This Court
in the above case held that merely because a witness
was declared hostile, his entire evidence cannot be
treated as effaced from the record,his testimony, to
the extent found reliable, can be acted upon. In
paragraph 6 following was observed:
“6......The evidence of PW 3 Kishan Lal
and PW 4 Ramesh came to be rejected by
the trial court because they were

declared hostile to the prosecution by
the learned Public Prosecutor as they
refused to identify the appellant and his
companions in the dock as the assailants
of the deceased. But counsel for the
State is right when he submits that the
evidence of a witness, declared hostile,
is not wholly effaced from the record and
that part of the evidence which is
otherwise acceptable can be acted upon.
It seems to be well settled by the
decisions of this Court — Bhagwan Singh
v. State of Haryana,(1976) 1 SCC 389,
Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa,
(1976) 4 SCC 233 and Syad Akbar v. State
of Karnataka,(1980) 1 SCC 30, — that the
evidence of a prosecution witness cannot
be rejected in toto merely because the
prosecution chose to treat him as hostile
and cross-examined him. The evidence of
such witnesses cannot be treated as
effaced or washed off the record
altogether but the same can be accepted
to the extent their version is found to
be dependable on a careful scrutiny
thereof.....”
18. The above propositions have again been reiterated
by this Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab,
(2015) 3 SCC 220, where in paragraph 31 following has
been stated:
“31. The next aspect which
requires to be adverted to is
whether testimony of a hostile
evidence that has come on record
should be relied upon or not. Mr.
Jain, learned senior counsel for
the appellant would contend that as
PW-7 has totally resiled in his

cross-examination, his evidence is
to be discarded in toto. On a
perusal of the testimony of the
said witness, it is evincible that
in examination-in-chief, he has
supported the prosecution story in
entirety and in the
cross-examination he has taken the
path of prevarication. In Bhagwan
Singh V. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC
389, it has been laid down that even
if a witness is characterized has a
hostile witness, his evidence is
not completely effaced. The said
evidence remains admissible in the
trial and there is no legal bar to
base a conviction upon his
testimony, if corroborated by other
reliable evidence. In Khuji @
Surendra Tiwari V. State of Madhya
Pradesh,(1991) 3 SCC 627, the Court after
referring to the authorities in
Bhagwan Singh (supra), Rabindra
Kumar Dey V. State of Orissa,(1976) 4
SCC 233 and Syad Akbar V. State of
Karnataka,(1980) 1 SCC 30, opined that
the evidence of such a witness
cannot be effaced or washed off the
record altogether, but the same can
be accepted to the extent it is
found to be dependable on a careful
scrutiny thereof.”
19. The evidence of a witness who has been declared
hostile can be relied if there are some other
material on the basis of which said evidence can be
corroborated. More so, that part of evidence of a
witness as contained in examination-in-chief, which

remains unshaken even after cross-examination, is
fully reliable even though the witness has been
declared hostile.
20. It is relevant to note that the trial began
against six accused persons. Shivlochan-PW.13 in his
examination-in-chief took the name of Devraj alone
who was stated to have assaulted Devi Prasad.
Shivlochan did not mention in his
examination-in-chief about the presence of other
accused which may be a reason for the prosecution to
get the witness declared as hostile. It is, however,
relevant to note that even in the cross-examination
the witness repeated that he heard Devraj saying
“Maro Sale Ko” who had assaulted Devi Prasad and Devi
Prasad @ Prachar cried “Bachao Bachao”. The factum of
assault by Devraj was throughout maintained by the
witness. Thus, even though witness was declared as
hostile witness his evidence so far as the role of
Devraj is unshaken. Similarly, evidence of Ajar
Das-PW.16, where in his examination-in-chief he
stated that accused Devraj gave three lathi blows to
Devi Prasad which was seen by him. The witness

further stated that Devraj threatened him to run away
otherwise he shall also be assaulted. Even after the
witness was declared hostile he maintained his stand
that he forbidden Devraj from assaulting Devi Prasad.
He further stated that he saw Devraj and Dinda
assaulting Devi Prasad in the night and on the next
day the dead body was found below Rakhet Pulia. The
witness further stated that due to land dispute
Devraj and Dinda had assaulted Devi Prasad. In
cross-examination he voluntarily stated that he had
seen the accused giving three lathi blows. Further,
he stated that he did not see that whom he has beaten
because it was dark. The statement in
cross-examination in no manner dilute the value of
the evidence. It was Devi Prasad who received injury
whose dead body was found next day morning. The
statement that it was Devraj who gave three lathi
blows obviously referred to lathi blow to Devi
Prasad-deceased. Thus, we conclude that in spite of
witnesses PW.13 and PW.16 having been declared as
hostile witnesses their evidence that Devraj
assaulted Devi Prasad is unshaken and has rightly

been relied by the courts below in recording
conviction.
21. As noted above Ratan Guruji was pillion rider
along with deceased-Devi Prasad and after they
proceeded from the house of Devi Prasad on the
motorcycle after some distance near pakkar tree they
were stopped by five persons. The vehicle was got
stopped by those persons they asked as to who is
sitting behind, upon this Devi Prasad said that Ratan
Guruji of Chandra was sitting. Then Dinda came
towards them having a torch with him. Ratan Guruji
stated that one person came from behind with geda and
shouted “maro, kya dekh rahe ho” and he assaulted
Devi Prasad with geda. Devi Prasad on being assaulted
ran towards back side and shouted “bachao bachao”.
Thus, statement of Ratan Guruji of assault on Devi
Prasad when read with the evidence of PW.13 and PW.16
clearly indicates that it was Devraj who had
assaulted Devi Prasad which caused death of the
deceased.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant has further

contended that injury given by danda cannot be said
to be sufficient for death of a person and there is
no evidence to indicate that the injury caused by
Devraj was sufficient for death. He further submitted
that Dr. K.P. Vishwakarma-PW.20, in his statement
stated that injuries which were found in the person
of Devi Prasad-deceased could have been received in
an accident. We have gone through the statement of
Dr. K.P. Vishwakarma-PW.20 and the postmortem report.
The Doctor-PW.20 in his statement after referring to
the injuries received by the deceased has clearly
stated that only some of the injuries could have been
caused by accident.
23. Dr. K.P. Vishwakarma in his statement has stated
that the cause of death is head injury caused to the
deceased. Thus, there is Doctor's evidence that all
the injuries which were found on the person of the
deceased could not have been caused due to the
accident that is falling below Rakhet Pulia.
24. There being clear evidence of stopping of the
motorcycle near pakkar tree and ensuing quarrel and

assault on Devraj the theory of accident as sought to
be suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant
is wholly unreliable. The details in the Panchnama of
the dead body and position of the dead body as stated
by Anup Shai Rajwade, Inspector of Police-PW.11, in
his statement completely bely the theory of accident.
In the examination-in-chief he stated about the
injuries, further stated that in between both the
legs, between the thigh one white bottle of one litre
having half bottle of liquor was kept and at a
distance of 4 ft. the motorcycle was there key of
which was put on a stone. He further stated that
motorcycle was not damaged since only back light was
damaged which indicates that motorcycle was brought
and thrown in the water. The manner in which liquor
bottle was kept between the thigh of dead body and
glass of back light of the motorcycle alone being
damaged does not support the theory of accident.
Thus, there are more than one reasons for rejecting
the theory of accident and there was evidence to
prove that the deceased was assaulted and murdered
and thereafter body and the motorcycle was brought
20Page 21
and put below the Pulia. Both Trial Court and the
High Court have referred to and relied on sufficient
evidence for convicting the accused. We, ourselves
after going through the evidence relied on by the
courts below for convicting the accused, are of the
opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved
beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused who had
caused homicidal death of the deceased.
25. We are also conscious that the jurisdiction which
this Court exercises under Article 136 has its own
self-imposed restrictions. It is sufficient to refer
to this Court's decision reported in Ganga Kumar
Srivastava v. State of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211, where
this Court after referring to various decisions has
laid down certain principles for exercising the power
of this Court under Article 136. It is useful to
refer to paragraph 10 of the judgment, which is :
“10. From the aforesaid series of
decisions of this Court on the exercise
of power of the Supreme Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution following
principles emerge:
(i) The powers of this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution are very
wide but in criminal appeals this Court
21Page 22
does not interfere with the concurrent
findings of fact save in exceptional
circumstances.
(ii) It is open to this Court to
interfere with the findings of fact given
by the High Court, if the High Court has
acted perversely or otherwise improperly.
(iii) It is open to this Court to invoke
the power under Article 136 only in very
exceptional circumstances as and when a
question of law of general public
importance arises or a decision shocks
the conscience of the Court.
(iv) When the evidence adduced by the
prosecution fell short of the test of
reliability and acceptability and as such
it is highly unsafe to act upon it.
(v) Where the appreciation of evidence
and finding is vitiated by any error of
law of procedure or found contrary to the
principles of natural justice, errors of
record and misreading of the evidence, or
where the conclusions of the High Court
are manifestly perverse and unsupportable
from the evidence on record.”
26. To the similar effect, another judgment of this
Court reported in Alamelu v. State, (2011) 2 SCC 385,
where this Court held that even though the powers of
this Court under Article 136 are very wide, but in
criminal appeals, this Court would not
interfere with the concurrent findings of facts,
save in very exceptional cases. Following was laid
22Page 23
down in paragraph 19:
“19. We have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
parties. Before we embark upon an
examination of the evidence, we may
point out that even though the powers
of this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution are very wide, but in
criminal appeals, this Court would not
interfere with the concurrent findings
of facts, save in very exceptional
cases. In an appeal under Article 136
of the Constitution, this Court does
not normally appreciate the evidence by
itself and go into the question of
credibility of witnesses. The
assessment of the evidence by the High
Court is accepted as final except where
the conclusions recorded by the High
Court are manifestly perverse and
unsupportable by the evidence on
record. Keeping in view the aforesaid
principles, we have examined the
findings recorded by the courts below.”
27. On the principles as laid down by this Court for
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136, we are
satisfied that the findings recorded by the courts
below from the evidence on record fully justify the
conviction of accused. The findings recorded by the
courts below can neither be said to be perverse
nor contain any such illegality which may render the
23Page 24
findings not reliable.
28. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal. The
appeal is dismissed.
......................J.
 ( S.A. BOBDE )
......................J.
 ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
NEW DELHI,
JULY 25, 2016.

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment