STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SMT. KALKI & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 15-04-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
504 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
SMT. KALKI & ANR. 
April 15, 1981 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND BA~ARUL !SLAM, JJ.J 
Co11stit11tio11 of India, Article J36-S11pre111e Co11rt will interfere in any matter 
to prel'ent the miscarriage of justice. 
Material discrepancies in the evidence, explained. 
Words and phrases-Whether the word "related"' means "interested"'. 
Respondent Kalki alias Kali and her husband Amara (along with four other 
co-accused) were charged, convicted under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to 
life imprisonment. While Kalki was also convicted and sentenced under section 
148 I.P.C. for two years' rigorous fmprisonment, the other five accussed were 
convicted and sentenced under section 147 I.P.C. for rigorous imprisonment for 
a period of one and a half years. 
In appeal the High Court of Rajasthan 
D 
acquitted all of them on the grounds (i) that P.W. I, the widow of the deceased 
"is ........ a highly interested witness, inasmuch as, she is the wife of the deceased 
and there was an enmity between the deceased and the accused on account of the 
dispute about the agricultural land" and (ii) "that there are material discrepancies 
in her statement". 
This Court granted special leave to appeal only against Kalki and her 
E 
husband and refused it as against the four. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. It is true that in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitu-
tion the Supreme Court normally does not interfere with findings of facts arrived 
at by the High Court. But when it appears that the findings of facts arrived at 
F 
are bordering on perversity and have resulted in miscarriage of justice, the 
Court will not decline to quash such findings to prevent miscarriage of justice. 
[507 F-G] 
2. 
Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected 
of a normal person. In the depositions of witnesses there are always some 
G 
normal discrepancies however honest and truthful the witnesses may be. These 
discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory 
due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the 
time of the occurrence, and the like. There are no material discrepancies in 
the evidence of P.W. I so as to reject the evidence in its entirety. 
[507 D-E] 
H 
3. "Related" is not equivalent to "interested". A witness may be called 
"interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a 
( 
RAJASTHAN v. KALK! (Baharul Islam J.) 
505 
litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. 
A 
A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the 
circumstances of a case cannot be said to be "interested". In the instant case, 
P.W. 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the 
respondents. (507 A-BJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Crirpinai Appeal No. 543 
of 1976. 
· 
B 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
the llth May 1975 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Criminal Jail 
Appeal Nos. 277, 413 to 416 and 918 of 1971. 
Badri Das Sharma for the Appellant. 
' 
Dalveer Bhandari for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BAHARUL IsLAM, J. This appeal by special leave on behalf of 
the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment of the Rajas-
than High Court acquitting the two respondents, Shrimati Kalki 
alias Kali and her husband, 'Amara (alongwith four other co·accused). 
Respondent Kalki was convicted under Section 302 and Section 148 
of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and for 
rigorous imprisonment for two years, respectively. The five other 
accused persons including respondent, Amara, were convicted under 
Section 302 read with Section 149 and under Section 14 7 of the 
Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to imprisoment for life 
and to one and a half years rigorous imprisonment respectively. 
2. 
The material facts of the prosecution case were that there 
was a land dispute between Nimba (P.W.6) father of the deceased, 
Poona, on the one hand, and respondent Amara and the members of 
his family, on the other. 
On July 17, 1970 at about sunset the 
accused persons of whom respondent Kalki was armed with an axe 
and respondent, Amara with a dharia, came to the house of the 
deceased. 
At th11t time the deceased was inside his hut with hls wife 
Mooli (P.W.l). Amara called Poona. Poona came out followed by 
his wife

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