Even otherwise, we do not find the present one to
be a case of manifest illegality so as to call for
interference. The evidence of PW-1, being the eye-witness
to the incident, remains unimpeachable and has been
believed by the two Courts. His evidence cannot be
discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not
raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the
deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1349 OF 2013
SURESH YADAV @ GUDDU Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Author: DINESH MAHESHWARI J,
Dated: February 25, 2022.
Though the matter is posted for directions but,
having regard to the circumstances of the case and the
issues involved, we have heard learned amicus curiae and
learned counsel for the State finally at this stage itself.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant
background aspects of the matter are that the appellant
herein had been convicted of offences under Section 302 IPC
and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, after having been
tried in Sessions Case No. 05 of 2004 by the Court of Ninth
Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg.
The accusations against the appellant had been that
he was having a love affair with the deceased but, got
enraged when he saw the deceased talking to another boy;
and caused multiple injuries to the deceased by a pointed
knife, leading to her death. As per the post-mortem report
1
(Ex. P-21A), as many as 12 injuries were found over the
body of the deceased, including penetrating wounds on lungs
and liver. The prosecution also examined PW-1 as an eyewitness,
who asserted having seen the appellant repeatedly
causing injuries on the person of the deceased. The
prosecution further asserted that the weapon of offence,
the knife of about 21 cm long blade, was recovered on the
disclosure made by the appellant.
Taking an overall view of the evidence, the Trial
Court held that the prosecution had been able to
substantiate the charges; and, after convicting the
appellant as noticed above, awarded varying punishments,
including that of life imprisonment for the offence under
Section 302 IPC. In appeal, the High Court again examined
the relevant evidence and found no reason to interfere with
the findings of the Trial Court and thus, affirmed the
conviction of the appellant as also the punishments awarded
to him.
The learned amicus curiae has submitted that there
had been no evidence of matching of the blood allegedly
found on the knife with that of the deceased; that PW-1
cannot said to be a reliable witness, particularly when the
incident allegedly happened in front of his house, but he
neither raised any alarm nor tried to save the deceased;
and that excessive number of injuries on the person of the
deceased would suggest involvement of more than one person.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has
duly supported the findings of the Trial Court and the High
Court.
Having examined the matter in its totality, we find
no reason to consider any interference in this appeal.
As regards the scope and width of such an appeal by
special leave against concurrent findings, this Court, in
the case of Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh: Criminal
Appeal Nos. 1097-1098 of 2018 decided on 09.02.2022, after
a survey of various decisions on the topic, has summed up
as follows:
“20…...In such an appeal by special leave, where
the Trial Court and the High Court have
concurrently returned the findings of fact after
appreciation of evidence, each and every finding
of fact cannot be contested nor such an appeal
could be dealt with as if another forum for
reappreciation of evidence. Of course, if the
assessment by the Trial Court and the High Court
could be said to be vitiated by any error of law
or procedure or misreading of evidence or in
disregard to the norms of judicial process
leading to serious prejudice or injustice, this
Court may, and in appropriate cases would,
interfere in order to prevent grave or serious
miscarriage of justice but, such a course is
adopted only in rare and exceptional cases of
manifest illegality. Tersely put, it is not a
matter of regular appeal. This Court would not
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact
based on pure appreciation of evidence nor it is
the scope of these appeals that this Court would
enter into reappreciation of evidence so as to
take a view different than that taken by the
Trial Court and approved by the High Court.”
The submissions made before us are essentially for
reappreciation of evidence or for taking a different view
of the evidence than that has been taken by the Trial Court
and the High Court. Nothing of any misreading of the
evidence or any error of law or procedure has been pointed
out.
Even otherwise, we do not find the present one to
be a case of manifest illegality so as to call for
interference. The evidence of PW-1, being the eye-witness
to the incident, remains unimpeachable and has been
believed by the two Courts. His evidence cannot be
discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not
raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the
deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed.
Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an
inference about involvement of more than one person; rather
the nature of injuries and similarity of their
size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she
was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon
and by the same person.
For what has been discussed hereinabove, this
appeal is required to be dismissed.
As per the Office Report and the Custody
Certificate placed before us, it appears that on
07.09.2019, the appellant, after having served the sentence
of imprisonment for a period of 15 years 9 months and 27
days, was released under Section 432 CrPC by the Government
of Chhattisgarh. Having regard to the circumstances, we
make it clear that dismissal of this appeal shall not be of
any adverse effect on such exercise of power of remission
by the Government of Chhattisgarh.
Subject to the observations foregoing, this appeal
stands dismissed.
We place on record our appreciation for the able
assistance extended by the learned amicus curiae as also by
the learned counsel for the State in disposal of this
matter.
...................J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI)
...................J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
New Delhi;
February 25, 2022.
No comments:
Post a Comment