MEKALA SIVAIAH versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 989 · Decided: 15-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
989
MEKALA SIVAIAH
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 2016 of 2013)
JULY 15, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Murder – On account of previous
grudge, accused  armed with knife, sprinkled chilli powder into the
eyes of the agriculturalist and stabbed him on the chest and
abdomen, resulting in grievous injuries which led to his death –
Conviction u/s. 302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the
courts below – Interference with – Held: Not called for – On facts
and upon appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses and other
material adduced by the prosecution, the courts below rightly
convicted the accused for offence u/s. 302.
Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Scope of interference – Held:
It is not the practice of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence for
the purpose of examining whether the finding of fact concurrently
arrived at by the Trial Court and the High Court are correct or not
– It is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest
illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of
misreading or ignoring material evidence, that this Court would
interfere with such finding of fact – Normally, the High Court is a
final court of appeal and this Court is only a court of special
jurisdiction.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Article 136 of the Constitution of India is an
extraordinary jurisdiction which this Court exercises when it
entertains an appeal by special leave and this jurisdiction, by its
very nature, is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied that
it is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or serious
miscarriage of justice. Article 136 is worded in wide terms and
powers conferred under the said Article is not hedged by any
technical hurdles. This overriding and exceptional power is,
however, to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 989
989
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
cause of justice. Thus, when the judgment under appeal has
resulted in grave miscarriage of justice by some misapprehension
or misreading of evidence or by ignoring material evidence then
this Court is not only empowered but is well expected to interfere
to promote the cause of justice. It is not the practice of this Court
to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of examining
whether the finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the courts
below are correct or not. It is only in rare and exceptional cases
where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious
miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring
material evidence, that this Court would interfere with such finding
of fact. This Court does not function as a regular Court of Appeal
in every criminal case. Normally, the High Court is a final court
of appeal and this Court is only, court of special jurisdiction. [Para
14-16, 18][994-G-H; 995-A-C; 996-B]
Subedar v. The State of U.P. (1970) 2 SCC 445 : [1971]
1 SCR 826; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State
of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 : [1983] 3 SCR 280;
Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC
158 : [1977] 1 SCR 280; Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 176 – referred to.
2.1 The submissions raised by the appellant are on the
weaker side in relation to testimonies of prosecution witnesses
as it has been contended that PW-1 to PW-4 are the supporters
of Telugu Desam Party and their evidence were contradictory
with respect to the nature of injuries inflicted upon the deceased,
place of occurrence etc. The testimony of a witness in a criminal
trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions
or omission. [Para 22][998-E-F]
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR
104; State of MP v. Ramesh (2011) 4 SCC 786 : [2011]
5 SCR 1 – relied on.
2.2 The trial court as well as the High Court analysed the
facts and evidence of the instant case and it is held that the
prosecution has discharged its duties in proving the guilt of the
appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
991
reasonable doubt. When there is ample ocular evidence
corroborated by medical evidence, mere non-recovery of weapon
from the appellant would not materially affect the case of the
prosecution. If the testimony of an eye witness is otherwise found
trustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be disbelieved and
rejected merely becaus

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.