Constitution of India, 1950
Article 136—Exercise of power by Apex Court—Principles emerge from the decisions of the Apex Court are : (i) The Powers of Apex Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals the Apex Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances; (ii) It is open to the Apex Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly; (iii) It is open to the Apex Court to invoke the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court; (iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it; and (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.
[Para 23]
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3—Ocular evidence of witness—Appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task—There is no fixed or straight-jaket formula for appreciation of ocular evidence—Judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case—Enumerated.
[Paras 27 & 28]
Section 8—Conduct of accused—Relevancy—Conduct of accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis of conviction.
[Para 50]
Section 27—Conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act—Explained.
[Para 42]
Section 27—Discovery of weapon—Reliability—In the absence of exact words, attributed to an accused person, as statement made by him being deposed by the Investigating Officer in his evidence, and also without proving the contents of the panchnamas, the trial court was not justified in placing reliance upon the circumstance of discovery of weapon.
[Para 47]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302—Murder—Conviction—Nothing palpable or glaring found in the evidence of two eye-witnesses—Few contradictions in the form of omissions here and there is not sufficient to discard the entire evidence of the eye-witnesses—Medical evidence on record further corroborates the ocular version of eye-witnesses—Chemical analysis report of the forensic science labortary indicates that there were stains of human blood on the hammer matching with the blood group of the deceased—Courts below rightly believed the testimony of two eye-witnesses—Conviction upheld.
[Paras 30 to 33]
Decision : Appeal dismissed