Gopal & Ors Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu [1986] INSC 11 (30 January 1986)
RAY, B.C. (J) RAY, B.C. (J) ERADI, V.
BALAKRISHNA (J)
CITATION: 1986 AIR 702 1986 SCR (1) 199 1986
SCC (2) 93 1986 SCALE (1)132
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 -
Criminal appeal - Conviction and sentence - Concurrently arrived at by trial
and Appellate Courts - Interference by Supreme Court When arises.
Practice and Procedure - Sentence - Question
of Supreme Court - When would interfere.
HEADNOTE:
The Mirasdars used to bring labourers from
outside for harvest of paddy from their fields as local labourers were
reluctant to harvest paddy at the wage of 4 1/2 measures of paddy. The local
labourers were very much aggrieved by this bringing of men from outside for
harvesting of paddy. On 25th December, 1968 one Packiriswami Pillai, since
deceased, alongwith 17 other labourers of Irakkai village was returning home at
about 5.30 P.M. after harvesting of crops from the fields of P.W.15. They
reached the east-west Harijan Street at about 7.30 P.M. mere was moon light and
electric light. There, P.Ws. 31,32,34 to 44 saw a crowd of 10 to 15 persons
standing. In that crowd P.Ws. 31,32,34 to 37 saw accused Nos.l and 2 armed with
aruvals. The crowd questioned them as to which place they belonged to, whereon
they replied that they belonged to Irakkai. Immediately, A- l, Gopal cried out
"Do not leave Irakkai people, cut them, beat them." P.Ws. 31,32,34 to
37 while running found Packiriswami Pillai tripping and falling down near the
electric lamp post on the Harijan Street. They also saw accused Nos. 1 and 2
and some others in the crowd lifting the deceased by hands, legs and clothes.
Then he was carried to some distance towards the east. At that time
Packiriswami Pillai cried out that he was being cut by Gopal (A-l) and they
were leaving him behind ant running. P.Ws. 31,32 and 34 to 37 saw the first
accused cutting Packiriswami Pillai with aruval on his neck and on his head.
P.Ws. 31,32, 34,35,36 and 37 ran towards the Caste Hindu Street and ultimately
entered into the house of P.W.47. Another crowd of 50-60 persons armed with
aruvals and sticks came from the 200 south and they caused injuries on the
persons of P.Ws. 54 and 55 who came out of their house. On getting information
at about 8.00 P.M., P.W.72, the Head Constable, with some S.A.P. men went to
Keezha Vanmani and after collecting the injured persons from the house of
P.W.47 as well as collecting the injured P.W.54 and 55 in the van came to the
Keevalur Police Station where P.W.79 (Inspector of Police) recorded the
statement of P.W.54 and registered the same as Crime No. 326 of 1968. He
thereafter recorded the statements of P.W.55 and P.Ws. 34 to 37 in the Police
Station. At about 11.45 P.M. P.W.79 left for Keezha Vanmani and met P.W.31 there.
Then both of them went to Nadu Street and found the dead body of Packiriswami
Pillai with multiple injuries.
P.W.79 recorded the statement of P.W.31 and
registered the same as Crime No. 328 of 1968.
Out of 22 accused, the Sessions Judge
acquitted 14 and convected 8, namely, accused Nos.1,2,12,13,17,18,19 and 20
under various offences and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
various terms. Te Sessions Judge found the aforesaid accused guilty of various
offences on the grounds (1) that there was electric light and also moon light
at the time of the occurrence and that P.Ws. 31,32 and 34 to 37 witnessed the
fatal injuries caused by aruvals on the head and neck of Packiriswami Pillai by
Gopal (A-l); (2) that the crying out by the deceased Packiriswami Pillai that
Gopal (A-l) was cutting him was in the nature of Dying Declaration and no
motive could be ascribed for the deceased to falsely implicate the accused A-l,
Gopal at that moment; (3) that the injuries sustained by P.Ws. 34 to 36 with all
probabilities establish the presence of these P.Ws. at a close range and seeing
the occurrence; and (4) that there was also overwhelming evidence as to the
presence of A-l in the crowd. The appeal of all the 8 accused persons filed
before the High Court was dismissed.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, ^
HELD : 1. m ere is no infirmity far less any
illegality or failure of justice which would impel the Supreme Court to
interfere with the order of conviction and sentence con currently arrived at by
both the courts below. [210 D] 2(i) P.Ws. 34 to 37 have clearly stated in their
depositions that they witnessed A-l inflict cutting injuries on the neck and
heat of Packiriswami Pillai after lifting him along- 201 with other accused and
carrying him to the east of Harijan Street. The court of appeal below has
rightly held that P.W. 54 was only concerned with the incident that occurred
before his house and, as such, in Exhibit P-11 there was only the reference to
the said incident. It was also held that P.W. 79 in his deposition refuted the
suggestion that he did not examine P.W. 34 to 37 at the time alleged by him.
Moreover, all these P.Ws. 34 to 37 suffered
several injuries being chased by the crowd while running forwards the house of
P.W. 47. Therefore, evidences of all these eye witnesses as well as of P.W. 31
were believed by both the courts below that A-l caused fatal cut injuries on
the person of deceased Packiriswami Pillai. [207 A-C] 2(ii) P.W. 65, Assistant
Surgeon, Government Hospital, who conducted postmortem also stated in his
deposition that out of the 11 injuries caused on the person of deceased
Packiriswami Pillai, the injuries Nos. 1 and 2 which could have been caused by
single cut were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The
doctor has also stated in his evidence that after the infliction of injury No.
1 the injured could have shouted out. There is, therefore, ample evidence to
negative the submission that the accused No. 1 was falsely implicated.
Moreover, P.W. 72 has stated in his deposition that he is deaf and as such he
could not hear whether P.Ws. 34 to 37 stated about the injuries caused by A-1
on deceased Packiriswami Pillai. He also stated that he heard P.Ws. 34 to 37
uttering Packiriswami, Packiriswami. It was rightly held by both the courts
below that P.W. 72 was deaf and could not hear what they told him. The
non-mentioning of attack on Packiriswami Pillai by P.W. 54 in his statement
does not in any way lead to the inference that the statements of P.Ws. 34 to 37
were recorded after recording of the statement of P.W. 31. [207 D-F] 3(i) P.W.
79 recorded the statement of P.Ws. 34 to 37 in the Police Station after
recording of the statements of P.Ws. 54 and 55. The mere recording of
Statements in plain- sheet instead of in diary form in these circumstances does
not lead to any where in view of the clear evidence of P.W.
79 which was believed by both the courts
below that the statements of these P.Ws. were recorded by him immediately after
recording the statement of P.W. 54 (Exhibit P-11).
[207 H; 208 A] 3(ii) P.Ws. 31,32 and 34 to 37
clearly stated in their evidence that they did not see P.W. 1 at all. The
evidence of P.W. 1 was that he did not go to Caste Hindu Street at that 202
time. In view of these evidence, the Court of appeal below held that the
evidence of P.W. 72 to the effect that P.W. 1 came near the house of P.W. 47
could not be accepted. It was also pointed out by the Court of appeal below
that P.W. 72 has not spoken about presence of P.W. 1 at about that time either
in Crime No. 326 or in Crime No. 328 of 1968. It was only during the
investigation in Crime No. 327 of 1968 namely the connected arson case, P.W. 72
made the above statement. [208 C-D]
4. It was not improbable that because at the
time of the recording of statement of P.Ws. 34 to 37, P.W. 79 was not aware of
the death of Packiriswami Pillai, so he did not consider it a grave crime and
did not register it separately as spoken to by him. P.W. 79 further stated in
his evidence that both the occurrences namely attack on P.Ws. 54 and 55 and
Packiriswami Pillai formed part of one and the same trans action. P.W. 79
further admitted that he ought not to have registered a separate case in Crime
No. 328 of 1968 on the statement of P.W. 31. It was rightly held by the Court
of appeal below that P.W. 79 adopted irregular procedure in registering
separate Crime number on the basis of the statement of P.W. 31 and this cannot
lead to the inference that P.Ws. 34 to 37 were examined only after examination
of P.W. 31. It was rightly held by the court of appeal below that these
irregularities committed by P.W. 79 in not recording the statement of P.Ws. 34
to 37 in Case Diary Form and registering the separate crime number on the
statement of P.W. 31 could not militate against the prosecution case.
No motive has been suggested against P.W. 79.
[208 G-H; 209 A-B]
5. The accused 1 and 2 have been convicted by
the Courts below on the finding that the offences charged against them have
been proved by the eye witnesses beyond any reasonable doubt. There was no
illegality nor any question of principle involved in the matter of making order
sentencing them to imprisonment as provided in 88. 302 and 364 of the Indian
Penal Code. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the
sentences passed by the Courts below. [209 E-F] State of Maharastra v. Mayer
Hans George, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 722 applied.
Pritam Singh v. The State, A.I.R. 1950 S.C.
169 and Sadhu Singh Harnam Singh v. state of Pepsu) A.I.R. 1954 S.C.
271 referred to.
203
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 234 of 1973.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.1972 of
the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1971.
R.K. Garg, Gopal Singh and L.R. Singh for the
Appellants.
K.G. Bhagat, A.V. Rangam, Umanath Singh, V.C.
Nagaraj and R.B. Misra for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.C. RAY, J. This appeal on special leave is directed against the Judgment and
Order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 4.8.1972 in Criminal
Appeal No.
23 of 1971 whereby the appeal was dismissed
and the conviction and sentences passed by the Court of Sessions, east
Thanjavur Division at Nagapattinam against the accused nos. 1, 2, 12, 13, 17,
18, 19 and 20 were confirmed.
The prosecution case is as follows:
All the accused appellants are residents of
various villages within Keevalur Police Station. The first accused is the
leader of the Left Communist Party are also of the Harijan Kisans of five
neighbouring villages. Accused nos.
17 and 18 are the leaders of the Left
Communist Party at Keezha Venmani village. There were serious differences
between the Mirasdars and the Harijan labourers regarding the fixation of wages
for harvest. These troubles started in 1967 and the Kisans have been agitating
for higher wages by taking processions and convening meetings. There was a
settlement in 1967 whereby the Mannargudi agreement was made between the
parties providing for additional half measure of paddy to the Harijan
labourers. This settlement was enforced from January 1968, but in November 1968
the Harijan labourers demanded uniform wages of six measures of paddy per kalam
of paddy harvested and in case this six measures of paddy was not paid, the
labourers trespassed into the lands and illegally harvested paddy crops. This
created the trouble as the local Harijan labourers refused to work at a low
wage and demanded higher wages. There was the Paddy Producers Association
having its offices in several villages. P.W. 1 Gopal Krishna Naidu was the
President of 204 Paddy Producers Association of Nagai Taluk and P.W. 19 Ramu
Plllai was the President of the Association at Irukkai and he deceased
Packiriswami Pillai was a member of the Association. The Mirasdars used to
bring labourers from outside for harvest of paddy from their fields as local
labourers were reluctant to harvest paddy at the wage of 4- 1/2 measures of
paddy. The local labourers were very much aggrieved by this bringing of men
from outside for harvesting of paddy.
On 25th December, 1968 Packiriswami Pillai,
since deceased, alongwith other labourers of Irakkai came to harvest the paddy
crops from the fields of the Mirasidar P.W. 15 at about 9 a.m. It appears that
on apprehending trouble P.W. 15 sent Exhibit P. 9 to the Inspector at Keevalur
Police Station and Exhibit P. 8 to the Vallvalam Police Station requesting for
sending some police men so that harvesting of crops might be done peacefully.
The harvesting of crops was over by 5.30 p.m. and each of the labourers were
fed with Sambar Satham. Each of them were paid 4-1/2 measures of paddy per
kalam. P.Ws. 25, 26 and one Rangayyan left immediately as they wanted to go to
Thevur for seeing a picture. The seventeen Irukkai people started for home
sometime thereafter. The Irukkai labourers reached the east-west Harijan Street
at about 7.30 p.m. P.Ws. 42 and 43 purchased betels in the shop of P.W. 30,
Subramaniam, of the main road. There was moon light and electric light.
There were bamboo clusters in the form of a
hood on either side of the east-west Harijan Street near the second electric
lamp post from the west. At the east west Harijan Street, P.Ws. 31, 32, 34 to
44 saw a crowd of 10 to 15 persons standing. In that crowd PWs. 31, 32, 34 to
37 saw accused Nos. 1 and 2 armed with aruvals. Tile crowd questioned them as
to which place they belonged to, whereon they replied that they belonged to
Irukkai. Immediately, A-l Gopal cried out, "Do not leave Irukkai people,
cut them, beat them." A crowd of about 50 persons being armed with aruvals,
sticks etc. came running towards the Irukkai people. P.Ws. 31, 32, 34 to 37
while running found Packiriswami Pillai tripping and falling down near the
electric lamp post on the Harijan Street. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and some others
in the crowd also lifted him by hands, legs and clothes. Then he was carried to
some distance towards the east. At that time Packiriswami Pillai cried out that
he was being cut by Gopal (A-1) and they were leaving him behind and running.
P.Ws. 31, 32 and 34 to 37 saw the first accused cutting Packiriswamy Pillai
with aruval on his neck and on his head. P.Ws. 31, 32, 347 35, 36 and 37 205
ran towards the Caste Hindu Street and ultimately entered into the house of
P.W. 47. Another crowd of 50-60 persons armed with aruvals and sticks came from
the south and they caused injuries on the persons of P.Ws. 54 and 55 who came
out of their houses. On the same day at about 8.00 p.m. P.W.
79, Inspector of Police, Keevalur Police
Station on getting information that some persons armed with lethal weapons were
parading on the main road beyond Thevur and towards south, after requisitioning
a vehicle (van) from Nagapattinam Police Station sent P.W. 72, the Head
Constable with the van for road patrolling between Thevur and Killukudi. P.W. 72
with some S.A.P. men went to Keezha Vanmani and after collecting the injured
persons from the house of P. W. 47 as well as collecting the injured P.Ws. 54
and 55 in the van came to the Keevalur Police Station, where P.W. 79 (Inspector
of Police) recorded the statement of P.W. 54 who was lying seriously injured in
the van and registered the same as Crime No. 326 of 1968 of Keevalur Police
Station. He thereafter recorded the statements of P.W. 55 in the van and
recorded the statements of other P.Ws. 34 to 37 in the Police Station.
Thereafter P.W. 79 at about 11.45 p.m. left for Keezha Venmani and reached at
about 12.00 mid night. He met P.W. 31 there. P.W. 79 then went to Nadu street
alongwith P.W. 31 and found the dead body of Packiriswami Pillai kept leaning
against a Coconut tree with multiple injuries. P. W. 79 recorded the statement
of P. W. 31 and registered the same as Crime No. 328 of 1968.
The learned Sessions Judge after duly
weighing the evidences of P.Ws. found inter alia that there was electric light
and also moon light at the time of the occurrence.
P.Ws. 31, 32 and 34 to 37 witnessed the fatal
injuries caused by aruvals on the head and neck of Packiriswami Plllai by Gopal
(A-l). It was also held that the crying out by the deceased Packiriswami Pillai
that Gopal (A-1) was cutting him was in the nature of Dying Declaration and no
motive could be ascribed for the deceased to falsely implicate the accused A-1
Gopal at that moment. Moreover, the injuries sustained by P.Ws. 34 to 36 with
all probabilities establish the presence of these P.Ws. at a close range and
seeing the occurrence. There was also overwhelming evidence as to the presence
of A-1 in the crowd. The learned Sessions Judge found accused No. 1 guilty of
offence under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He also
found the accused No. 1 alongwith accused Nos. 2, 13, 17 and 18 guilty of
murder under s.148 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous 206
imprisonment for two years. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also held guilty of the
offence under s. 364 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years.
All these sentences will run concurrently.
Out of 22 accused, 14 of the accused were acquitted and 8 of them i.e.
accused Nos. 1, 2, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 20
were convicted under various offences and they were sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for various terms.
Against the aforesaid judgment and order of
conviction, all the 8 accused persons failed Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1971.
The appeal was dismissed and the conviction of all the accused appellants for
various offences and sentences of imprisonment awarded against each of them
were confirmed.
Mr. Garg, learned counsel, appearing only on
behalf of the accused appellant No. 1 has submitted before this Court that he
will argue in this appeal only on behalf of the accused appellant No. 1 Gopal
and as regards accused appellant No. 2 he further submitted before us that the
appellant No. 2 Ramayyan who was convicted under s. 364 I.
P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years may be granted exemption from undergoing the
remaining term of the sentence.
It has been firstly contended by Mr. Garg,
learned counsel, that the statement of P.W. 54 Packiriswamy Poraiyar (exhibit
P-11) which was recorded by P.W. 79 and registered in Crime No. 326 of 1968 did
not mention about the attack on deceased Packiriswami Pillai or any Irukkai
people. It has also been submitted that P.W. 72 (Head Constable) who collected
the injured person P.Ws. 54, 55 and 34 to 37 in the van and took them to the
Police Station at Keevalur also did not tell about the attack on the deceased
Packiriswami Pillai. It has been, therefore, submitted that the statements of
P.Ws. 34 to 37 were recorded not at the Police Station immediately after
recording statement of P.W. 54 i.e. Exhibit P-11. It has also been submitted
that the accused Gopal (A-1) who is well known to the Mirasdars has been
falsely implicated at the instance of P.W. 1, who as stated by P.W. 72 came to
the place where P.W. 72 was bringing in the injured persons in the van i.e.
P.Ws. 54, 55 and 34 to 37 for bring them to the Police Station. This submission
has no legs to stand upon. It has been held by both the courts below that the
evidences of P.Ws. 34 to 37 were recorded by the Inspector, Keevalur Police
Station (P.W. 79) as soon as they were brought to the Police 207 Station at
about 10.30 a.m. All these witnesses have clearly stated in their depositions
that they witnessed A-1 Inflict cutting injuries on the neck and head of
Packiriswami Pillai after lifting him alongwith other accused and carrying him
to the east of Harijan Street. The court of appeal below has rightly held that
P.W. 54 was only concerned with the incident that occured before his house and
as such in Exhibit P-11 there was only the reference to the said incident. It
was also held that P.W. 79 in his deposition refuted the suggestion that he did
not examine P.W. 34 to 37 at the time alleged by him. Moreover all these P.Ws.
34 to 37 suffered several injuries being chased by the crowd while running
towards the house of P.W. 47. Therefore evidences of all these eye witnesses as
well as of P.W. 31 were believed by both the courts below that A-1 caused fatal
cut injuries on the person of deceased Packiriswami Pillai. P.W. 65 Dr.
Madan Gopal, Assistant Surgeon, Government
Hospital, Nagapattinam, who conducted post-mortem also stated in his deposition
that out of the 11 injuries caused on the person of deceased Packiriswami
Pillai, the injuries Nos. 1 and 2 which could have been caused by single cut
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Doctor has
also stated in his evidence that after the infliction of injury No. 1, the
injured could have shouted out. There is, therefore, ample evidence to negative
the submission that the accused No. 1 was falsely implicated. Moreover, P.W. 72
has stated in his deposition that he is deaf and as such he could not hear
whether P.Ws. 34 to 37 stated about the injureis caused by A-1 on deceased
Packiriswami Pillai. He also stated that he heard P.Ws. 34 to 37 uttering
Packiriswami, Packiriswami. It was rightly held by both the courts below that
P.W. 72 was deaf and could not hear what they told him. The non- mentioning of attack
on Packiriswami Pillai by P.W. 54 in his statement does not in any way lead to
the inference that the statements of P.Ws. 34 to 37 were recorded after
recording of the statement of P.W. 31. It has been tried to be submitted in
this connection that the statements of these P.Ws. were recorded in plain-sheet
of paper instead of recording in diary form, and this raises suspician that the
statements of the P.Ws. 34 to 37 were not recorded immediately after the
recording of the statement of P.W. 54. This submission was also set at naught
by the courts below by holding that P.W. 79 recorded the statements of P.Ws. 34
to 37 in the Police Station after recording of the statements of P.Ws. 54 and
55. The mere recording of 208 statements in plain-sheet instead of in diary
form in these A circumstances does not lead to any where in view of the clear
evidence of P.W. 79 which was believed by both the courts below that the
statements of these P.Ws. were recorded by him immediately after recording the
statement of P.W. 54 (Exhibit P-11).
It was submitted that had P.Ws. 31, 32 and 34
to 37 known about the attack on deceased Packiriswami Pillai and his being
carried away, it was unlikely that they would not have informed P.W. 1, who
came there as stated by P.W. 72 and P.W. 1 in that case would have taken
further action in the matter with the help of P.W. 72. This submission has also
no merit. It has been held by the court of appeal below that P.Ws. 31, 32 and
34 to 37 clearly stated in their evidence that they did not see P.W. 1 at all.
The evidence of P.W. 1 was that he did not go to Caste Hindu Street at that
time. In view of these evidences, the court of appeal below held that the
evidence of P.W. 72 to the effect that P.W. 1 came near the house of P.W. 47
could not be accepted.
it was also pointed out by the court of
appeal below that P.W. 72 has not spoken about presence of P.W. 1 at that time
either in Crime No. 326 or in Crime No. 328 of 1968. It was only during the
investigation in Crime No. 327 of 1968 namely the connected arson case P.W. 72
made the above statement. Therefore, this submission is not sustainable.
It was submitted by Mr. Garg that had P.Ws.
34 to 37 stated in their statements which were recorded by P.W. 72 at Keevalur
Police Station about the attack on Packiriswami Pillai, then that statement
would have been recorded separately and a separate crime number would have been
given to it as was done in recording statement of P.W. 31 and registering it in
Crime No. 32 of 1968. It was, therefore, suggested that P.Ws. 34 to 37 were
examined by P.W. 79 only after recording statement of P.W. 31. This submission
was also urged before the Court of appeal below and it was held that it was not
improbable that because at the time of the recording of statement of P.Ws. 34
to 37, P. W. 79 was not aware of the death of Packiriswamy Pillai, so he did
not consider it a grave crime and did not register it separately as spoken to
by him. P.W. 79 further stated in his evidence that both the occurrences namely
attack on P.Ws. 54 and 55 and Packiriswami Pillai formed part of one and the
same transaction. P.W. 79 further admitted that he ought not to have registered
a separate case in Crime No. 328 of 1968 on the statement of P.W. 31. It was
209 rightly held by the Court of appeal below that P.W. 79 adopted irregular
procedure in registering separate crime number on the basis of the statement of
P.W. 31 and this cannot lead to the inference that P.Ws. 34 to 37 were examined
only after examination of P.W. 31. It was rightly held by the Court of appeal
below that these irregularities committed by P.W. 79 in not recording the
statement of P.Ws.
34 to 37 in Case Diary Form and registering
the separate crime number on the statement of P.W. 31 could not militate
against the prosecution case. No motive has been suggested against P.W. 79.
It was lastly submitted before us by Mr. Garg
that in view of the sentence already suffered by A-l and A-2 this Court should
remit the remaining period of their sentence.
We are unable to accept this submission
advanced by Mr. Garg. Mention may be made in this connection to the
observations of this Court in State of Maharastra v. Mayer Hans George, A.I.R.
[1965] S.C. 722, which are as follows:- "It is the settled rule of the
Supreme Court that it would not interfere with the sentence passed by the
Courts below unless there is an illegality in it or the same involves any
question of principle." As we have already stated herein before that the
accused 1 and 2 have been convicted by the courts below on the finding that the
offences charged against them have been proved by the eye witnesses beyond any
reasonable doubt.
There was no illegality nor any question of
principle involved in the matter of making order sentencing them to
imprisonment as provided in ss. 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the sentences passed by the
Courts below.
It is pertinent to mention here the
observations made by this Court in Pritam Singh v. The State, A.I.R. [1950]
S.C. 169, which are as follows:- "It will not grant special leave to
appeal under Article 136 (1) of the Constitution unless it is shown that
exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave
injustice has been done and the case in question presents features of
sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against and
that only 210 those points can be urged at the final hearing of A the appeal
which are fit to be urged at the preliminary stage when leave is asked for. It
is well established that this court does not by special leave convert itself
into a court to review evidence of a third time. Where, however, the court
below fails in apprehending the true effect of a material change in the
versions given by the witnesses immediately after the occurrence and the
narrative at the trial with respect to the nature and character of the offence,
it seems to us that in such a situation it would not be right for this court to
affirm such a decision when it occasions a failure of justice." This
decision has been relied upon and followed in a subsequent decision of this
Court in Sadhu Singh Harnan Singh v. State of Pepsu, A.I.R. [1954] S.C. 271.
In the premise aforesaid, we do not find any
infirmity for less any illegality or failure of justice which would impel us to
interfere with the order of conviction and sentence concurrently arrived at by
both the courts below.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and confirm
the convicFPJ tion and sentences passed on accused Nos. A-l and A-2 as well as
on other appellants.
M.L.A. Appeal dismissed.
Back
