LexPRITAM SINGH versus THE STATE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 453 PRITAM SINGH v. THE STATE [SAIYID FAZL ALI, PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MUKHERJEA and DAS, JJ.] Constitution of India, Art. 136 (1)-Special leave to appeal- Granting of leave-Guiding principles-Final hearing-Nature of. The Supreme Court will not grant special leave to appeal under Art. 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. The view that once an appeal has been admitted by special leave, the entire case is at large and the appellant is free to contest all the findings of fact and raise every point which could be raised in the High Court is wrong. Only those points can be urged at the final · hearinl( of the appeal which are fit to be urged at the preliminary stage when leave to appeal is asked for. Ibrahim v. Rex ([1914] A. C. 615) referred to. APPEAL from the High Court of Judicature at East Punjab : Criminal Appeal No. II of 1950. This was an appeal by special leave from a judg- ment and order of the High Court of Judicature for the Province of East Punjab at Simla (Falshaw and Soni JJ.) dated the 23rd November, 1949, in Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 1949 upholding the conviction of the appellant on a charge of murder and confirming a sentence of death passed on him by the Sessions Judge .of Ferozepore. ]ai Gopal Sethi (H.]. Umrigar, with him) for the appellan.t. Basant Kishan Khanna, Advocate-General of East Punjab (S. M. Sikri, with him) for the respondent. 1950. May 5. The judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZL Au ].-This is an appeal by one Pritam Singh against the decision of the High Court of Punjab at Simla, upholding his conviction on the charge of 1950 May S Fazl AliJ. 1950 Prit111n Si11gh v. T'111 State . Fazl A?i J. 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1950] murder of one Buta Singh and confirming the sentence of death passed on him by the Sessions Judge of Ferozepore. The prosecution case, which has been found to be substantially true by both the trial judge and the High Court may be shortly stated as follows . On the 28th December, 1948, Pritam Singh had made indecent overtures to one Punni, wife of Kakarra Chamar, who had been brought into the village by Buta Singh, the deceased, about 10 or 12 years ago. Buta Singh, on learning of this incident, spoke to Pritam Singh, but finding that his attitude was un- compromising, he advised Kakarra to go to the police station to report the matter. On the next day, while Kakarra was going to the police station, Mal Singh, the first prosecution witness m the case, brought him back telling him that Pritam Singh had apologized and the matter shoulc1 ncit be pursued. On the 30th December, at about 5 p.m., just when Buta Singh came out of his house, Pritam Singh came up with a double barrelled 12-bore gun an.d shot him in the abdomen, and Buta Singh died a short time thereafter. Shortly after the occurrence, Punjab Singh and Na! Singh, who had both witnessed the occur- rence, went to the police station at Abohar, which is at a distance of 13 miles from the place of occurrence, and lodged th~ first information report regarding the murder. In this report, Punjab Singh reported the facts as already stated, but he also added that Pritam Singh was drunk when he fired the gun and his younger brother, Hakim Singh, who was also drunk was standing at a short distance from him and shouting "Kill, don't care." None of the other wit- nesses however supported Punjab Singh as to the part attributed by him to Hakim Singh or as to the drunken condition of the appellant or Hakim Singh, and the police after due investigation of the case sent up a charge sheet against the appellant only. The appellant was thereafter put on his trial before the Sessions Judge of Ferozepore. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the prosecution witnesses, of whom five were eye-witnesses, viz., Punjab Singh, his brother Mitta Singh, Mal Singh, Nikka Singh (brother of Mal S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 455 Singh), and Mst. Phoolan, mother of the deceased, came t<t-the conclusion, in agreement with 4 assessors who were present at the trial, that the version given by the prosecution witn~sses was substantially true. In support of his conclu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.