LexARUNACHALAM versus P. S. R. SADHANANTHAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
482 A ARUNACHALAM v. P. S. R. SADHANANTHAM March 6, 1979 B [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND Q. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J c D E Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 136-Scope of jurisdiction. Crimfnal appeal not preferred by Government-Prlvate Party if could invok~ jurisdiction under Art. 136. The prosecution alleged that there was enmity between the deceased and hi• brother, P.W. 2 (Appellant) and P.W. 3 on tho one side and A 1 (respondent), A 2, their father, A 4 and A 5 their nephews on the other on account of disputes arising out of elections to the Gram Pancbayat and Co-- operative Stores of the village. A fe_w days before the occurrence, the first accused demanded that the dance performance being arranged in connection with a religious festival in the village should be held under his PresidentShip, but this was rejected by PW 3. The prosecution further alleged that on the night of the occurrence when the stage was being decorated by PW 3 all tbe accused came in a group, got up on the stage and A 1 questioned PW 3 with regard to the conduct of the dance performance without his presiding over it. Accused 1, 2 and 4 started beating P.W. 3. Frightened by the fracas the men gathered near the stage started running away. In the meantime, the deceased and hia men intervened, whereupon the first accused took out a knife from his waist and. stabbed the deceased on the left flank, as a result of which he fell down. The deceased was first taken to the police station where his staternent Ex. Pl w3\'S recorded. He was then taken to the local hospital but the stab injury being serious he was removed to the headquarters hospital where a Magistrate recorded his dying declaration Ex. P6. The next afternoon tho deceased succumb~d to his injuries. In their defence, the accused claimed that they were falsely implicated on F account of factions and suggested that some of the prosecution witnesses prevailed upon ·the deceased to name the accused as assailants. In the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the defence suggested that a certain R was also injured at thCj sMne time and place. G H Accepting the prosecution case the Sessions Judge convicted A-1 under s. 148 and s. 302 and the rest under Sections 147, 323 and 149 read with 323. On appeal the High Court acquitted the accused primarily on the ground that neither the direc't witnesses nor the dying declarations explained the serious injury caused to Ramalingam who it appeared from the· evidence cf the Doctor, PW 4, had received a stab injury 5 ems. x 2 ems. x 2 ems. near the left side of the abdomen on the back. The High Court thought that though Ext. P-1 was purported to have been recorded earlier than Ext. P-6 in point of time, it was in fact recorded later. The High Court . took the view that the first accused must have been implicated by the decea6ed as the assailant in Ext. P-6 at the in$tance of PW3 who met him in the hospital at about 1 a.m. The evidence of the direct witnesses PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 5 was r~ected ' , ) • • ' t ' ARUNACHALAM V. P. S. R. SADHANANTHAM 483 on the ground that they were interested and had not explained how P.amalingam A tiUstained the injury found on him. The conduct of P.\.V. 3 was also severely commented upon. The State did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal of the accused by the High Court; but the appeal was preferred by the brothor of the deceased. On the question whether a private party could invoke the jurisdiction of B ibis· Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution against an acquittal by the High Court . HELD : 1. This Cou1i could entertain appeals against judgments of acquittal 'by the High Court at the1 instance of a private party also. The fact that the 'Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for an appeal to the High Court against an order of acquittal by a. subordinate court at the instance of a C ·private party has no relevance to the· question of the power of this Court undelr Art. 136 of the Constitution. [488 DJ 2. The appellate power vested in this Court under Art. 136 is not to be confused with ordinary appellate · power exercised by appellate courts and appellate tribunals under specific statutes. The pow~ under Art. 136 is plenary, 'exercisable outside the purview of the ordinary law' to D meet the pressing demands of justice. Art. 136, neither confers on any one the right to· invoke the jurisdiction of this Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.