KHILAN & ANRversusSTATE OF M.P.

                       [2010] 3 S.C.R. 220


A                        KHILAN & ANR
                                v.
                         STATE OF M.P.
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2007)

B                        MARCH 9, 2010
    [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Conviction under - Eight
  accused persons armed with deadly weapons forming unlawful
C assembly to kill deceased - Infliction of fatal injuries on
  deceased - Conviction and sentence of four accused u/s.
  302134 - Upheld by High Court but acquittal of one of the
  accused - On appeal held: There is no infirmity either in the
  appreciation of evidence or apparent miscarriage of justice
D - Thus, order of conviction of three accused by courts below
  does not call for interference - Presence and participation of
  the accused acquitted by High Court in the crime doubtful,
  thus, order of High Court in that regard upheld - Constitution
  of India, 1950 - Article 136.
E
      According to the prosecution case, there was a land
  dispute between the parties. P, K, G, SS, D, KR, GL and
  8 armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful
  assembly and caused fatal injuries to TS. PR-PW2 and
F SB were the eye witness to the assault. The trial court
  convicted P, GL, K and SS u/s.302134 IPC and sentenced
  to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the
  conviction and sentence of P, K and GL but acquitted SS.
  Hence, the present cross appeals were filed. This Court
G by order dated 16.2.2010 dismissed the appeals.

       Now· giving reasons for dismissing the appeals, the
    Court

                                220
H
          KHILAN & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P.                 221

    HELD:                                                       A

Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2007:

     1.1. The trial court concluded that the four accused
namely P, K, G and SS had inflicted the fatal injuries on
the deceased. It was upon the thorough consideration of         8
the evidence that the trial court rendered its verdict. [Para
15] (230-E-F]

     1.2. In appeal the High Court re-appreciated the entire
 evidence, even more elaborately. The High Court had c
 independently reached its conclusions. It is noticed that
the" medical evidence given by the doctor clearly shows
that the deceased had suffered five incised injuries. The
injuries resulted in the instantaneous death of TS. The
High Court reiterates the reason for disbelieving the o
testimony of SB. On examination of the evidence given
by PW 2-PR it is noticed that PW2 had merely stated that
his Mama goes to the fields in the morning after taking
tea. He usually comes back to take lunch in the afternoon.
The witness never stated that on that particular date also E.
the deceased had only taken tea. No clarification with
regard to this was sought from the doctor by either par_ty.
In any event this single factor would not be sufficient to
falsify the evidence led by the prosecution. The High
Court also discarded the evidence of SB on the ground
                                                             F
that the identity of B has not been established. There was
only one injury on the deceased which could have been
caused by a blunt weapon. SB had insisted that B had
assaulted the deceased with the lathi. The High Court
also came to the conclusion that merely because the . G
witnesses had been closely related to the deceased and
there is enmity between the families is no reason to
discard the evidence which is consistent and is
corroborated. The weapons were recovered at the
instance of the appellant. It is also _concluded that TS had
died due to the cumulative effect of all the injuries which H
   222     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010) 3 S.C.R.


A were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
  nature. The said conclusion is also buttressed by the
  circumstance that TS died immediately upon the injuries
  being inflicted. Therefore, the High Court had endorsed
  the approach of the trial court. Upon a close examination
B of the evidence of PW2, the High Court came to a
  conclusion that the presence and participation of SS in
  the crime was doubtful. It is observed that although the
  evidence of PW2 and PW4-SL is consistent with regard
  to the role played and the weapons used by P, G and K.
c However it suffers from material discrepancies/
  inconsistencies in relation to the role played and the
  weapons used by SS. It is observed that tfle statement
  of P is inconsistent with his statement during
  investigation u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. In the report as well as in
  his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. he has stated that SS was
0
  carrying luhangi. However, in his statement he changed
  his version and stated that he was carrying and used
  farsa. This apart during investigation luhangi was
  recovered and seized from his possession. Even PW4
E mentioned that SS was having luhangi in his hand.
  Consequently he had been given been benefit of the
  doubt and acquitted. [Para 16] [230-G-H; 231-A-H; 232-A-
  B]

       1.3. It becomes quite evident that appreciation of the
F evidence by the courts below cannot be said to have
  resulted in grave injustice to the accused/appellants. The
  findings recorded by the trial court have been reaffirmed
  by the High Court on an independent appreciation of the
  evidence. In the absence of any infirmity either in the
G appreciation of the evidence or apparent miscarriage of
  justice, it would not be appropriate for this Court to
  interfere with the judgments of the courts below. Both the
  courts have painstakingly examined· the entire evidence
  led by the parties. Cogent reasons have been given in
H support of the conclusions reached by both the courts.
          KHILAN & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P.               223


In such circumstances this Court would be ra_ther             A
reluctant to intervene. Even though the powers of this
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide,
but they are exercised only in exceptional cases where
substantial and grave injustice has been done to the
aggrieved party. [Para 17] [232-C-E]                          B

     Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham (1979) 2 SCC
297; State of U.P. v. Babu/ Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29; Ganga
Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211,
referred to.
                                                              c
     1.4. On going through the evidence in the instant
case, it cannot be concluded that the appellants have
been able to establish any exceptional circumstances or
any miscarriage of justice which would shock the
conscience of this Court; and that the opinion expressed      D
by the courts below was either manifestly perverse or
unsupportable from the evidence on record. It is not
possible for this Court to convert itself into a court to
review evidence for a third time. lnspite of the strenuous
efforts made by the counsel for the appellants, the           E
instant case neither raises any exceptional issue nor has
resulted in miscarriage of justice. [Para 21] [234-F, G, H]

Criminal Appeal No. 1540 of 2008:

     The evidence of the prime witness PR-PW2 in relation     F
to SS was inconsistent and contradictory in nature. There
was a direct conflict in the evidence given by PW2 and
PW4. There was also discrepancies in the statement
made in Court and the statements made earlier during
investigation as also in the report. Consequently, the High   G
Court expressed an opinion that the presence and
participation of SS in the crime is doubtful. This being
a possible and a plausible view would not call for any
interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. [Para 1] [235-C-D]          H
    224       SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·               [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A                          Case Law Reference:
          (1979) 2 sec 297          Referred to.          Para 18
          (1994) s sec 29           Referred to.          Para 19
          c2oos) s sec 211          Referred to.          Para 20
B
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1348 of 2007.

          From the Judgment & Order dated 10.4.2006 of the High
c Court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in
    Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1998.

                                  vvm-t
    Crl.A.No. 1540 of 2008
D
        Harinder Mohan Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Durgesh Yadav
    and Shabana for the Appellants.

        S.K. Dubey, B.S. Banthia, Naveen Sharma, Yogesh Tiwari
    and N. Annapoorani for the Respondent.
E
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. On 16.2.2010 this
    Court had passed the following order:
F                "Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel appearing
          for the respondent submitted that arising out of the same
          judgment, the State of M.P. has also filed another Criminal
          Appeal No.1540/2008 against the acquittal of Sangram
          Singh and requests that the said appeal may also be heard
G         along with the present appeal.

                Criminal Appeal No.1540/2008 is taken on board.

                The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed
          order. The reasoned order will follow."
H
          KHILAN & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P.                     225
           [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
     2. We now proceed to give the reasons.                         A

      3. This appeal has been filed by the two appellants against
the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya
Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 120/98 dated 10.4.2006. The
High Court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal of the            8
petitio!")er and upheld the conviction and sentence under
Section 302/34 IPC.

      4. We may briefly notice the salient facts involved in this
 appeal. It was the case of the prosecution that eight accused
 persons, namely, Prema, Khilan, Gaindalal, Sangramsingh, C
 Ourzan, Kashi Ram, Gyarsia Lal and Bihari had formed an
 unlawful assembly. They armed themselves with deadly
 weapons and assaulted Toophan Singh, in furtherance of their
 common object to kill him, in which they succeeded. It was
 stated by the complainant, Prabhulal (PW2) that on 8.12.1991 D
 when he had gone to the fields to answer a call of nature, he
 heard the cries of his Mama, Toophan Singh, shouting "mar
 diya-mar diya". He went running to the spot and saw that
 accused Prema, Gainda and Khilan armed with farsas and
 Sangram armed with luhangi along with 'Durzan, Kashi, Gyarsia E
 Lal and Bihari armed with lathis, were assaulting his Mama,
Toophan Singh. As a result of the assault Mama, Toophan
Singh, fell on the ground. When he tried to intervene the
appellant, Prema exhorted the other accused to kill the
complainant also. All the accused tried to catch him but he ran F
away and reached his home. After hearing about the assault
from the-complainant (PW2), Phool Singh (PW7) and two other
persons~rban and Rajaram went to the spot. However,
the assailants ran away. On an examination of Toophan Singh,
theylound that-Re-had died. He had received deep cut wounds G
over hi~ head and blood was oozing out of them. Sushila Bai
who w's working in the field is said to be an eye-witness of
the assault. It is also the case of the prosecution that the Prema
and his sons had a dispute over land with the deceased and
his family. The incident was reported by Prabhulal, son of Anant H
    226     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A Singh, on the same day at about 1300 hrs. On the information
  being received, Crime No.108/91 was registered at Police
  Station, Kachnar under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC. Upon
  conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and all
  the eight accused were sent up for trial. All the accused
B pleaded not guilty. They all took up the plea that due to enmity,
  they have been falsely implicated.

       5. Upon conclusion of the trial the Addi. Sessions J1.Jdge
  acquitted Durzan, Kashi Ram, Gyarsia Lal and Bihari of all the
C charges. Prema, Gainda Lal, Khillan and Sangram Singh were
  convicted of murder of Toophan Singh under Section 302/34
  and sentenced to life imprisonment and Rs.500/- each as fine.
  It was further directed that in case of default they would undergo
  a further sentence of two months R/I.

D         6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the present
    petitioners/appellants along with Sangram Singh challenged the
    same in appeal before the High Court. .

       7. The High Court upon re-appreciation of the entire
E evidence upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants,
   Prema, Khillan and Gainda. However, the conviction and
   sentence of Sangram Singh was set aside and he was duly
  .acquitted.

        8. Against the aforesaid judgments, Khillan and Gainda Lal
F   have filed the present appeal.

       9. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned
  counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution version
  is inherently improbable. The evidence of the prosecution
G witnesses suffers from inherent contradictions. OAccording to
  learned counsel it is a clear...cut case of false implication due
  to old enmity between the twofamilies. The presence of ~2,
  Prabhulal, in the field at 10 am isquite unnatural and doubtful.
  According to the learned counsel, in villages people go for their
H ablutions early in the morning when it issemi-darkness. Nobody ·
           KHILAN & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P.                   227
            [SURINDER. SINGH NIJJAR, J.)

would be seen answering a call of natureat 10 am. In any event,     A
the statements of this witness are contradictory. He claims to
have taken a utensil with him to wash his face. There was no
occasion for him to go to the field for washing his face as the
houses of the parties were located in the fields and were very
nearby. Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of      B
the same evidence four persons were acquitted by the Trial
Court and one by the Appeal Court. Therefore, for the same
reasons the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and
acquittal. Making detailed reference to the evidence of the
witnesses for the prosecution, learned counsel submitted that       c
there are different versions given by the prosecution witnesses.
Learned counsel submitted that Toophan Singh could not have
gone to the fields at 7 o'clock in the morning without wearing
any warm clothes. He could not have been wearing only
underpants in the month of December. Learned counsel further        0
submitted that Toophan Singh had actually seen Sushila Bai in
a compromising position with Baba. He was, therefore,
attacked by Baba of Toarai. According to the learned Counsel,
Toophan Singh actually died when the tractor in which he was
being taken for treatment overturned.
                                                                    E
     10. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant
 Prabhulal (PW2) had categorically stated his Mama, Toophan
Singh, used to take the buffaloes to the fields for grazing every
day. On 8.12.1991, he had also gone to the fields at about 7
am. He had further stated that his Mama used to go to the fields    F
after drinking tea and return in the afternoon for lunch.
According to the learned counsel if the deceased had gone
after only drinking tea, he would not have had half digested food
in his stomach. In the post mortem report, it is quite clearly
stated that the stomach of the deceased contained half              G
digested food. This could only be if the deceased had eaten
about 3 to 4 hours before he died.

     11. In order to discuss the entire evidence the Trial Court
formulated three main issues which needed to be decided in
                                                                    H
the case.
    228       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A               Issue No.1 is "whether on 8.12.1991 at 10 am
          Toophan Singh died and his death is homicide?" The Trial
          Court notices the evidence of Dr. Natwar Singh (PW1) who
          had conducted the post mortem on the deceased on
          9.12.1991. This witness stated that the following injuries
B         were found on the deceased:-

          (i) An incised chopped wound over mid of the scalp on both
          the mid parietal region centrally of shape "c", of size 5cm
          x 5 cm x upto brain cut (meningitis and brain matter) clotted
          blood present.
c
          (ii) An incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep over
          right arm lower 1/3rd on lateral aspect obliquely.

          (iii) An incised wound transversely oblique over mid of left
0         thigh on lateral aspect of (illegible).

          (iv) An incised wound over left thigh middle 1/3rd on lateral
          aspect transversely 5 cm x 3 cm x muscle cut 1 x = below
          the injury no 3.

E         (v) An incised wound over mid of left leg on ant. Aspect of
          size 3 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep.

          (vi) A contusion over left scrotum on anterior lateral aspect
          5cm x 3cm."
F       This witness was of the opinion that cause of death of
    Toophan Singh was due to shock as a result of hemorrhage
    caused by the aforesaid injuries.

       12. The second issue framed by the Trial Court was
G "whether all the accused armed with Farsas, Luhangi lathi and
  Lathi on 08.12.1991 at 10 AM in furtherance of common object
  and knowledge assaulted Tufan Singh in Village Aam Khera
  Path aria?"

          13. Thereafter Trial Court evaluated the evidence of
H
           KHILAN & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P.                    229
            [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
Prabhulal (PW 2), Shrilal (PW 4), Phool Singh (PW 7). Prabhulal     A
had deposed about the assault; whereas Shrilal and Phool
Singh talked of the events after Prabhulal informed them of the
assault on Toophan Singh by the accused. The Trial Court
noticed that there was hardly any credible evidence about the
assault by Durzan, Kashi Ram, Bihari and Gyarsia Lal.               B
Prabhulal (PW2) merely stated that they were armed with lathis,
and were only standing at the spot. They did not participate in
the crime. Therefore, they have been acquitted.

      14. The Trial Court rejects the submissions on behalf of      C
the defence that independent witnesses have qeliberately not
 been examined. It is concluded that merely because of enmity
 between the two groups and the close relationship of the
 witnesses with the deceased the evidence of Prabhulal (PW2)
 Shri Lal (PW4) and Phool Singh (PW7) cannot be disbelieved.
 For accepting their evidence the Trial Court notices that the      D
 report was immediately lodged in which Prabhulal and Phool
 Singh was shown. Investigation was also immediately started.
 The Statements of Shri Lal under Section 161 Cr.P .C. were
 recorded on the same day. The three witnesses are consistent
 on the material facts of the incident. The ocular evidence is      E
corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Natwar Singh (PW1) with
regard to the nature of the injuries, time and cause of death.
The injuries which were found over the dead body were mainly
caused by sharp edged weapon which may be farsas as well
as luhangi. The Trial Court then notices the submission that        F
semi digested food had been found in the intestine, even
though, Prabhulal (PW2) had stated that usually the deceased
was taking tea in the morning. The Trial Court was of the opinion
that Prabhulal (PW2) had merely stated that the deceased
usually consumed tea only but there was no statement to the         G
effect that on that particular day the deceased had not eaten
anything else. The Trial Court thereafter notices the evidence
of Sushila Bai (PW9). It is noticed since she did notsupport the
prosecution case she had been declared hostile. The Trial
Court disbelieved the witness since 5 incised injuries had been     H
    230     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [201 OJ 3 S.C.R.


A caused on the body of the deceased which could only have
  be_en caused by a sharp weapon. Sushila Bai had said that
  Baba had assaulted the deceased with a lathi. The defence
  version that Baba had assaulted Toophan, because Sushila Bai
  had been found in a compromising position with the Baba, was
B disbelieved as no question was put to her on behalf of the
  accused when she was examined as PW 9. The Trial Court
  also concludes that the injuries on the deceased were not the
  result of the tractor turning turtle on he was being carried.
  According to Dr. Natwar Singh (PW1 ), there were five incised
c injuries on Toophan Singh. Only injury No.6 could have been
  caused by a blunt weapon. The Trial Court also noticed that the
  weapons of offence had been recovered at the instance of the
  accused. On the basis of the above the Trial Court concluded
  that the four accused namely Prema, Khillan, Gainda and
D Sangram Singh had inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased.

        15. The third issue framed by the Trial Court is whether on
  the aforesaid date, time and place the accused persons formed
  !Jnlawful assembly to kill Toophan Singh with deadly weapons
  and using the force and aggressions committed while assaulting
E Toophan Singh. In considering this issue the Trial Court has
  reiterated that the murder was committed by the accused
  Prema, Khillan, Gainda and Sangram Singh. It is also noticed
  that the participation of Durzan, Kashi Ram, Gyarsia lal and
  Bihari is not proved by their mere presence. These persons had
F no intention to kill Toophan Singh nor had they formed unlawful
  assembly to kill him. From the above, it is quite evident that it
  was upon the thorough consideration of the evidence that the
  Trial Court has rendered its verdict.

G        16. In appeal the high court re-appreciated the entire
    evidence, even more elaborately. The high court had
    independently reached its conclusions. It is noticed that the
    medical evidence given by Dr. Natwar Singh clearly shows that
    the deceased had suffered five incised injuries. The injuries
    have resulted in the instantaneous death of Toophan Singh. The
H
          KHILAN & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P.                     231
           [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
 High Court reiterates the reason for disbelieving the testimony     A
 of Sushila Bai. On examination of the evidence given by
 Prabhulal it is noticed that PW2 had merely stated that his
 Mama goes to the fields in the morning after taking tea. He
 usually comes back to take lunch in the afternoon. The witness
  Dnever stated that on that particular date also the deceased       B
 had only taken tea. No clarification with regard to this was
 sought from the doctor by either party. In any event this single
 factor would not be sufficient to falsify the evidence led by the
 prosecution. The High court also discarded the evidence of
 Sushila Bai on the ground that the identity of Baba has not been    c
 established There was only one injury on the deceased which
 could have been caused by a blunt weapon. Sushila Bai had
 insisted that Baba had assaulted the deceased with the lathi.
 The High Court also comes to the conclusion that merely
 because the witnesses had been closely related to the                   ·
                                                                     0
deceased and there is enmity between the families is no reason
 to discard the evidence which is consistent and is corroborated.
 The weapons have been recovered at the instance of the
appellant. It is also concluded that Toophan Singh had died due
to the cumulative effect of all the injuries which were sufficient   E
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The aforesaid
conclusion is also buttressed by the circumstance that Toophan
Singh died immediately upon the injuries being inflicted.
Therefore the High court had endorsed the approach of the
learned Trial Court. Upon a close examination of the evidence
of PW2 Prabhulal, the High Court came to a conclusion that           F
the presence and participation of Sangram Singh in the crime
was doubtful. It is observed that although the evidence of PW2,
Prabhulal, and Shri Lal PW4 is consistent with regard to the
role played and the weapons used by Prema, Gainda and
Khillan. However it suffers from material discrepancies/             G
inconsistencies in relation to the role played and the weapons
used by Sangram Singh. It is observed that the statement of
Prabhulal is inconsistent with his statement during investigation
under Section 161 of Cr.PC (Ex.01). In the report Ex.P2 as well
as in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC he has stated         H
    232      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A that Sangram Singh was carrying luhangi. However, in his
  statement he had changed his version and stated that he was
  carrying and used farsa. This apart during investigation luhangi
  was recovered and seized from his possession. Even Shri Lal
  PW4 has mentioned that Sangram Singh was having luhangi
B in his hand. Consequently he had been given been benefit of
  the doubt and acquitted.

        17. From the above, it becomes quite evident that
  appreciation of the evidence by the courts below cannot be said
C to have resulted in grave injustice to the accused/appellants.
  The findings recorded by the trial court have been reaffirmed
  by the High Court on an independent appreciation of the
  evidence. In the absence of any infirmity either in the
  appreciation of the evidence or apparent miscarriage of justice,
  it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the
D judgments of the courts below. Both the courts Dhave
  painstakingly examined the entire evidence led by the parties.
  Cogent reasons have been given in support of the conclusions
  reached by both the courts. In such circumstances this Court
  would be rather reluctant to intervene. Even though the powers
E of this Court under article 136 of the Constitution are very wide,
  but they are exercised only in exceptional cases where
  substantial and grave injustice has been done to the aggrieved
  party.

F       18. The scope and ambit of the power of this Court under
  Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere in findings of
  acquittal or conviction recorded by the courts below has been
  a subject matter of discussion in a number of decisions of this
  Court. We may notice here only three of the earlier judgments.
G In the case of Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham (1979)
  2 SCC 297 this Court has observed as follows:

                "The power is plenary in the sense that there are no
          words in Article 136 itself qualifying that power. But, the
          very nature of the power has led the court to set limits to
H
            KHILAN & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P.                     233
             [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
     itself within which to exercise such power. It is now the well-   A
     established practice of this Court to permit the invocation
     of the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional
     circumstances, as when a question of law of general
     public importance arises or a decision shocks the
     conscience of the court. But, within the restrictions             B
     imposed by itself, this Court has the undoubted power to
     interfere even with findings of fact, making no distinction
     between judgments of acquittal and conviction, if the High
     Court, in arriving at those findings, has acted 'perversely
     or otherwis~ improperly."                                         q
     19. Again in the case of State of U. P. v. Babu/ Nath ( 1994)
6 SCC 29 this Court, while considering the scope of Article 136
as to when this Court may possibly upset the findings of fact, it
is observed as follows:
                                                                       D
          "5. At the very outset we may mention that in an
    appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution this Court
    does not normally reappraise the evidence by itself and
    go into the question of credibility of the witnesses and the
    assessment of the evidence by the High Court is accepted           E
    by the Supreme Court as final unless, of course, the
    appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any
    error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles
    of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the
    evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are           p
    manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence
    on record."

     20. The aforesaid two judgments along with some other
earlier judgments of this Court were considered by this Court
in the case of Ganga Kumar Sriva"'tava v. State of Bihar               G
(2005) 6 SCC 211. In paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment
this Court culled out the principles emerging from the earlier
decisions in the following words:

     "(i)   The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the          H
    234          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.
                                                                      \




A                 Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals
                  this Court does not interfere with the concurrent
                  findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances.

          (ii)    It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings
                  of fact given by the High Court, if the High Court has
B
                  acted perversely or otherwise improperly.

          (iii)   It is open to this Court to invoke the power under
                  Article 136 only in very excepti~nal circumstances
                  as and when a question of law of general public
c                 importance arises or a decision shocks the
                  conscience of the Court.

          (iv)    When the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell
                  short of the test of reliability and acceptability and
D                 as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it.

          (v)     Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is
                  vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found
                  contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of
                  record and misreading of the evidence, or where
E                 the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly
                  perlterse and unsupportable from the evidence on
                  record."

        21. We have been taken through the evidence in the
F present case by the learned counsel for the parties. We are
  unable to conclude that the appellants have been able to
  establish any exceptional circumstances or any miscarriage of
  justice which would shock the conscience of this Court. We are
  unable to conclude that the opinion expressed by the courts
G below was either manifestly perverse or unsupportable from the
  evidence on record. It is not possible for this Court to convert
  jtself into a court to review evidence for a third time. In spite of
  the strenuous efforts made by the learned counsel for the
  appellants, we are of the considered opinion that the present
H case neither raises any exceptional issue nor has resulted in
           KHILAN & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P.                     235
            [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
miscarriage of justice.                                              A

    22. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is
dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No. 1540 of 2008 -
                                                                     B
      1. We have earlier noticed in the judgment rendered in
Criminal Appeal No.1348/2007 that the evidence of the prime
witness, Prabhulal (PW2) in relation to Sangram Singh was
inconsistent and contradictory in nature. There was a direct
conflict in the evidence given by Prabhulal and Shri Lal (PW4).      c
There was also discrepancies in the statement made in Court
and the statements made earlier during investigation as also
in the report Ex. P2. Consequently the High Court has
expressed an opinion that the presence and participation of
Sangram Singh in the crime is doubtful. This being a possible        D
and a plausible view would not call for any interference in
exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India.

    2. In view of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal
No.1348 of 2007, this appeal is also dismissed.                      E
N.J.             Reasons given for dismissal of the Appeals.