NIHAL SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 5 · Decided: 10-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

4 S.C.R .. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
5 
trate who shall be chosen by tbe District Magistrate of 
Saharanpur for their disposal according to law. 
Petition allowed. 
NIHAL SINGH AND ORS. 
fl. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(K. SuBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J. R. MuoHOLKAR, 
JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Acquittal order set aside by High Court-
Appeal preferred to this Court-Procedure to be followed by this 
Court in hearing the appeal-Constitution of India, Art. 136. 
The appellants formed themselves into an unlawful assembly 
and in pursuance of their common object caused the death of two 
persons. 
They were tried under ss. 148 and 302/149 of Indian 
Penal Code. 
The trial Court acquitted them of all the charges. 
On appeal, the High Court, on a review of the entire evidence, set 
aside the order of acquittal and sentenced each of them to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment for life and one year respectively under the 
aforesaid charges. 
Hence this appeal. 
Held, (per Subba Rao and Mudholkar JJ.) This Court has 
full discretion to hear an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitu-
tion on facts and law. 
But this wide jurisdiction has to be regu~ 
lated by the practice of this Court. There are two ways of ap-
proach to the hearing of such an appeal by this Court : one is 
to go through the entire evidence and then come to a conclusion 
whether the High Court has infringed the principles laid down in 
Sanwat Singh's case or whether the appeal is an exceptional one 
which calls for the interference of this Court in the interest of jus· 
tice. The other and more convenient method is to allow the counsel 
to state the case broadly and, after going through the judgments 
of the lower courts, to come to a conclusion whether the appeal 
falls under one or other of the two categories mentioned above 
and then, if the court is satisfied that it is a fit case to review the. 
entire evidence, to do so. 
The second method is a more convenient one as it also pre-
vents the unnecessary waste of time involved in adopting the alter-
native procedure of treating practically such an appeal as a regular 
appeal. 
Obviously this Court cannot lay down an inflexible rule 
of practice in this regard and it must be left to the division benches 
to follow the procedure that appears suitable to them. 
1963 
Hazara Singh 
Gill 
v. 
The State 
of Punjab 
Hidayatullah f. 
1963 
May, JO 
1962 
1963 
Nihal Singh 
and others 
v. 
State of 
Punjab 
• 
Subba.Rao.f. 
SlJPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 120,. 
followed. 
State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, A.LR. 1960 S.C. 391, followed. 
(2) The High Court had borne in mind the principles laid 
down by this Court in Sanrvat Singh's case and had considered the 
entire evidence carefully and arrived at the finding of fact as it 
did. · It is not an exceptional case in which the entire evidence can 
be reviewed. 
(3) On the facts found no case of private defence could be 
made out. This plea was not raised either before the trial court or 
before High Court. 
Held (per Raghubar Dayal J.) (1) Dividing the hearing of 
an appeal under Art. 136 into two parts, hearing on a broader view 
and later, if necessary, on facts, does not go to make a hearing 
as perfect as it would be desirable for a proper adjudication of 
the appeal. 
(2) It is not desirable to lay down any limitation about the 
scope of the jurisdiction of this Court and the limits of the exercise 
of .its discretion in hearing an appeal ef this nature as this Court 
has full discretion to hear an appeal on both facts and law. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuR1s01cTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 53 of 1962. 
Appe_al by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated January 9, 1961, of the Punjab High Court in Crimi-
nal Appeal No. 1018 of 1%0. 
A. Rangan'IJllham Chetty and K. L. Arora, for the ap-
pellants . 
B. K. Khanna and P. D. Menon, for the respondent. 
!\fay 10, 1963.-The judgment of Subb;i Rao and Mudhol-
kar JJ., was delivered by Subba Rao J. Dayal J. deli-
vered a separate Opinion. 
SuBBA RAo J.-The appeal by special leave is .directed 
against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for 
Punjab at Chandigarh setting aside that of the Second 
Additional S~ssions Judge, Ferozepore, acquitting the 5 
appellants of the charges under s. 148 and ss. 302/149 of 
the Indian Penal Code and convicting them under the 
said sections and sentencing each of them to rigorous im-
prisonment for life and one year respectively. 
The prosecution cas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.