MEKALA SIVAIAHversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                         [2022] 6 S.C.R. 989                              989


                        MEKALA SIVAIAH                                    A
                                  v.
               THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 2016 of 2013)
                           JULY 15, 2022                                  B
  [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
                                                                          C
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.                               D
        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   E
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.
                                                                          F
      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        G
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
                                                                          H
                                 989
990            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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]
D           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.
E            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
F     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]
G           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
H
  MEKALA SIVAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH                         991


reasonable doubt. When there is ample ocular evidence                   A
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 because certain insignificant, normal or natural
                                                                        B
contradictions have appeared into his testimony. The deceased
has been attacked by the appellant in broad daylight and there is
direct evidence available to prove the same and the motive behind
the attack is also apparent considering there was previous enmity
between the appellant and PW-1. [Para 24][999-D-G]
      2.3 Having considered the facts of the instant case and upon      C
appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses and other material
adduced by the prosecution, the trial court as well as the High
Court were right in convicting the appellant for the offence under
Section 302 IPC. Therefore, there is no ground warranting
interference with the findings of the trial court and the High Court.   D
[Para 25][999-H; 1000-A-B]
                       Case Law Reference
[1971] 1 SCR 826                 referred to            Para 17
[1983] 3 SCR 280                 referred to            Para 18         E
[1977] 1 SCR 280                 referred to            Para 19
[2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 104          relied on              Para 22
[2011] 5 SCR 1                   relied on              Para 23
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.              F
2016 of 2013.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 22.06.2012 of the High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. Appeal No. 811
of 2008.
      Ravindra S. Garia, Adv. for the Appellant.                        G

      Mahfooz A. Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef,
T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, K. V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. Rajeswari
Mukherjee, Advs. for the Respondent.

                                                                        H
992            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            KRISHNA MURARI, J.
             1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment
      and order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of
      Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’)
B     in Criminal Appeal No.811/2008, whereby the High Court has dismissed
      the criminal appeal and upheld the judgment dated 04.04.2008 passed by
      the Court of Sessions Judge at Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial
      Court) whereunder, the appellant was convicted for the offence under
      Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’)
C     and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a
      fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three
      months.
            2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as
      follows:
D           On 06.09.2006, the deceased (father of PW-1) and PW-1 went to
      the 14th mile centre of Lemalle Village to sell their vegetables. While
      PW-1 was getting the vegetables weighed, the deceased crossed the
      road and went to the shop of PW-3 to purchase tobacco leaves. PW-2
      and PW-4 were also present at the place of occurrence. Having seen
E     the deceased, the appellant, armed with a knife, came to the shop of
      PW-3 and sprinkled chilli powder into the eyes of the deceased, and
      stabbed him on the chest and abdomen, resulting in grievous injuries.
      The appellant immediately fled from the spot after seeing PW-1 to 4.
      The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital Amaravathi, where
      the doctors declared him dead.
F
             3. On the basis of the aforesaid report given by PW-1, PW-7
      registered the case being FIR No. 120/2006 dated 06.09.2006 at PS
      Amaravathi for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter,
      PW-8 and PW-9 visited the place of occurrence, held an inquest over
      the dead body of the deceased, examined the eyewitnesses, arrested
G     the appellant, and filed charge sheet against him. On 26.12.2007, charges
      under Section 302 IPC were framed and the appellant pleaded not guilty
      and claimed trial.
            4. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution examined
      nine witnesses and there was no oral or documentary evidence adduced
H     by the defence side.
  MEKALA SIVAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH                                993
               [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

            PW-1: Madhirapalli Srinivasa Rao, Son of the deceased              A
           PW-2: Shaik China John
           PW-3: Shaik Subhani, owner of the tobacco shop
            PW-4: Kovvuri Venkateswara Rao, belong to the same village
            as the deceased.                                                   B
            PW-5: Dr. G. Peter Paul, who conducted post-mortem on
            07.09.2006.
            PW-6: Kalapala Venkaiah, Panchayat Secretary of Endrol
            Village.
                                                                               C
            PW-7: I. Govindarajulu, Sub-Inspector of Police, District
            Crime Records Bureau.
            PW-8: T. Ravindra Babu, Inspector of Police.
            PW-9: K. Jagadishwara Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police.
      5. The Trial Court after analysing the statement made by the             D
prosecution witnesses, vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2008 held
the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced
him to imprisonment for life.
       6. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 811 of
2008 before the High Court challenging the Trial Court’s order of              E
conviction and sentencing. Vide judgment and order dated 22.06.2012,
the High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and observed
that there is no iota of doubt in the case of the prosecution and therefore,
the prosecution has discharged its burden in proving the guilt of the
accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond a reasonable              F
doubt.
      7. We have heard Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, Learned Counsel
appearing for the State.
      8. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Learned Counsel appearing for the              G
appellant vehemently submitted that the weapon (knife) alleged to have
been used by the appellant in the commission of the offence was not
seized by the police and non-seizure of the said weapon is fatal to the
case of the prosecution. It was further submitted that the prosecution
                                                                               H
994             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     failed to examine the scribe of the FIR and that there was a delay in
      sending the FIR to the court.
            9. It was further submitted that the presence of eyewitnesses in
      the place of occurrence is very doubtful and incredible in the
      circumstances and becomes further incredible as none of the so-called
B     eyewitnesses is even able to describe the weapon of the offence, despite
      the prosecution case being that the appellant was apprehended by the
      crowd but still he managed to run away. It was further submitted that
      the inquest report clearly shows that the alleged eyewitnesses merely
      expressed their doubt with respect to the appellant that, due to previous
      enmity the appellant might have killed the victim and this shows they
C     only had a suspicion and were not witnesses to the incident.
            10. It was further submitted that the falsity of the prosecution
      case and the theory of the appellant running away in the backdrop of his
      receiving treatment for such serious injury in his leg that he had become
      invalid for doing labour work and was receiving treatment for the
D     immediately preceding last six months further makes the case against
      the appellant extremely doubtful.
             11. Per contra, Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, Learned Counsel for the
      Respondent State has duly supported the conviction and sentencing of
      the Appellant with reference to the material on record and as regards
E     the conviction of the Appellant, it was submitted that the judgment passed
      by the Trial Court and the High Court after thorough appreciation of the
      evidence does not suffer from any infirmity and call for no interference.
      There are no grounds made for reversal of the conviction.
            12. It was further submitted that the conviction of the Appellant in
F     the present case is based on the testimony of four eye-witnesses and
      the same is absolutely consistent and reliable.
            13. We have carefully considered the submissions made at the
      bar and perused the materials placed on record.
             14. Before adverting to the merits of the contention raised, it is
G
      important to reiterate that 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.
H
     MEKALA SIVAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH                              995
                  [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

       15. It is well settled by judicial pronouncement that Article 136 is     A
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 cause
of justice. Thus, when the judgment under appeal has resulted in grave
miscarriage of justice by some misapprehension or misreading of evidence
                                                                                B
or by ignoring material evidence then this Court is not only empowered
but is well expected to interfere to promote the cause of justice.
       16. 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      C
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.
       17. Reference may be made to the judgment of two-Judge Bench
of this Court in the case of Subedar Vs. The State of U.P.1 wherein this        D
Court, while considering the scope of interference with the concurrent
findings based on a proper appreciation of evidence, has observed as
under :-
         “This Court undoubtedly does not normally proceed to review
         and reappraise for itself the evidence in criminal cases when          E
         hearing appeals under Article 136. But when the judgment
         under appeal has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice by
         some misapprehension or mistake in the reading of evidence
         or by ignoring material evidence- then this Court is not
         only empowered but is expected to interfere to promote the             F
         cause of justice.”
       18. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat 2,
a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that this Court does not interfere
with the concurrent findings of fact unless it is established:
         i.   That the finding is based on no evidence; or                      G
         ii. That the finding is perverse, it being such as no reasonable
             person could arrive at even if the evidence was taken at its
             face value; or
1
    (1970) 2 SCC 445
2
    (1983) 3 SCC 217                                                            H
996                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A              iii. The finding is based and built on inadmissible evidence which
                    evidence, excluded from vision would negate the prosecution
                    case or substantially discredit or impair it, or
               iv. Some vital piece of evidence which would tilt the balance in
                   favour of the convict has been overlooked, disregarded or
B                  wrongly discarded.
             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 a court of special jurisdiction. This Court would not
      therefore reappraise the evidence to determine the correctness of findings
C     unless there are exceptional circumstances where there is manifest
      illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice, for example, the
      forms of legal process are disregarded or principles of natural justice
      are violated or substantial and grave injustice has otherwise resulted.
            19. The principles governing the interference by this Court in a
D     criminal appeal by way of special leave were further enumerated in
      Dalbir Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab3 as under :-
               “(1)     that this Court would not interfere with the concurrent
                        finding of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence
                        even if it were to take a different view on the evidence;
E              (2)      that the Court will not normally enter into a
                        reappraisement or review of the evidence, unless the
                        assessment of the High Court is vitiated by an error
                        of law or procedure or is based on error of record,
                        misreading of evidence or is inconsistent with the
F                       evidence, for instance, where the ocular evidence is
                        totally inconsistent with the medical evidence and so
                        on;
               (3)      that the Court would not enter into credibility of the
                        evidence with a view to substitute its own opinion for
                        that of the High Court;
G
               (4)      that the Court would interfere where the High Court
                        has arrived at a finding of fact in disregard of a
                        judicial process, principles of natural justice or a fair
                        hearing or has acted in violation of a mandatory
      3
H         (1976) 4 SCC 158
     MEKALA SIVAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH                            997
                  [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

                 provision of law or procedure resulting in serious           A
                 prejudice or injustice to the accused;
         (5)     this Court might also interfere where on the proved
                 facts wrong inferences of law have been drawn or
                 where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly
                 perverse and based on no evidence.”                          B
       20. The scope and width of appeals under Article 136 has been
elaborately articulated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pappu
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh4. This judgment authored by one of us
(Hon’ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.) after noticing catena of judgments on
the issue, the three-Judge Bench summarized the principles as under :-        C
         “101. In summation of what has been noticed hereinabove, it
         is but clear that as against any judgment/final order or
         sentence in a criminal proceeding of the High Court, regular
         appeals to this Court are envisaged in relation to the
         eventualities specified in Article 134 of the Constitution of        D
         India and Section 2 of the Act of 1970. The present one is not
         a matter covered thereunder and the present appeals are by
         special leave in terms of Article 136 of the Constitution of
         India. In such an appeal by special leave, where the Trial
         Court and the High Court have concurrently returned the
         findings of fact after appreciation of evidence, each and every      E
         finding of fact cannot be contested nor such an appeal could
         be dealt with as if another forum for reappreciation of
         evidence. Of course, if the assessment by the Trial Court and
         the High Court could be said to be vitiated by any error of
         law or procedure or misreading of evidence or in disregard           F
         to the norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudice
         or injustice, this Court may, and in appropriate cases would,
         interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of
         justice but, such a course is adopted only in rare and
         exceptional cases of manifest illegality. Tersely put, it is not a
         matter of regular appeal. This Court would not interfere with        G
         the concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation
         of evidence nor it is the scope of these appeals that this Court
         would enter into reappreciation of evidence so as to take a

4
    2022 SCC OnLine SC 176                                                    H
998                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A              view different than that taken by the Trial Court and approved
               by the High Court.”
              21. Coming to the facts of present case at hand, the deceased
      was an agriculturalist and on 14.03.2006, during a quarrel between
      PW-1 and the appellant, PW-1 gave a beating to the appellant with a
B     stick. Thereupon, the appellant gave a report against PW-1 in Amaravathi
      police station and the same was registered as Crime No. 35 of 2006 for
      the offence punishable under Section 324 and 506 of IPC. After
      completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against PW-1
      and the same is pending. In that connection, the appellant demanded
      money from PW-1 for treatment of his knee to which both the deceased
C     as well as PW-1 agreed for payment but on a later date, the deceased as
      well as PW-1 refused to pay the appellant. Due to inability to get a
      treatment, the appellant became invalid from labour work and that resulted
      in appellant developing a grudge against PW-1 and his father(deceased).
      Thereafter, on seeing the deceased coming towards the tobacco shop of
D     PW-3 on 06.09.2006, the appellant stabbed him on the chest and abdomen
      causing grievous injuries to him which ultimately lead to the death of the
      deceased.
             22. The contentions raised by the Appellant are on the weaker
      side in relation to testimonies of prosecution witnesses as it has been
E     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 as observed by this Court in Narayan
      Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra5, wherein
F     while considering the issue of contradictions in the testimony, while
      appreciating the evidence in a criminal trial, it was held that only
      contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can
      be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. In paragraph 42
      of the judgment, it has been held as under :-
G              “42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in
               material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of
               the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would
               not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable.

      5
H         (2000) 8 SCC 457
     MEKALA SIVAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH                               999
                  [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

         When the version given by the witness in the court is different         A
         in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier
         statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and
         not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in
         the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays
         false and the sense of observation differ from person to
                                                                                 B
         person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be
         of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not
         cause any dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if there is
         contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point,
         that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such
         witness.”                                                               C
      23. The same view stands reiterated in the concurring opinion
expressed by this Court in State of MP Vs. Ramesh6.
      24. The facts and evidence in present case has been squarely
analyzed by both Trial Court as well the High Court and the same can be
summarized as follows:                                                           D

         i.   The prosecution has discharged its duties in proving the guilt
              of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond
              reasonable doubt.
         ii. When there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical         E
             evidence, mere non-recovery of weapon from the appellant
             would not materially affect the case of the prosecution.
         iii. If the testimony of an eye witness is otherwise found
              trustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be disbelieved and
              rejected merely because certain insignificant, normal or natural   F
              contradictions have appeared into his testimony.
         iv. The deceased has been attacked by the appellant in broad
             daylight and there is direct evidence available to prove the
             same and the motive behind the attack is also apparent
             considering there was previous enmity between the appellant
                                                                                 G
             and PW-1.
      25. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case in
juxtaposition with the judgments referred to above and upon appreciation

6
    (2011) 4 SCC 786                                                             H
1000                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 6 S.C.R.


 A     of evidence of the eyewitnesses and other material adduced by the
       prosecution, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were right in
       convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore,
       we do not find any ground warranting interference with the findings of
       the Trial Court and the High Court.
 B             26. As a result, appeal stands dismissed.


       Nidhi Jain                                                 Appeal dismissed.



 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H