1955 (11) TMI 33 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in the circumstances of this case this Court could have thought fit to grant special leave in terms of Article 136 (1) of the Constitution? Held that - That is again a matter for Courts of fact. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to make out any illegality or serious irregularity in procedure which can be said to have occasioned a failure of justice. No reasons have been adduced for interference with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.
2. Circumstantial evidence supporting the conviction.
3. Compliance with Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code during the seizure and search.
4. Question of motive for the crime.
5. Legality and weight of evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the grant of a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution is not a matter of course but requires the High Court to consider whether the case involves difficult questions of law or principle that warrant further consideration. The Court reiterated that if the High Court has no doubt about the guilt of the accused and confirms the conviction, ordinarily, there should be no ground for granting a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. In this case, the High Court's order granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was deemed erroneous as the case did not involve any substantial question of law or principle.

2. Circumstantial Evidence Supporting the Conviction:
The conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The key circumstantial facts included:
- The deceased and the appellant were last seen together on the night of the murder.
- The appellant returned alone at about 1 A.M.
- The appellant's shoes were found stained with human blood.
- Bloodstained khaki shirt and pants were recovered from the appellant's room.
- A bloodstained karauli (small sword) was recovered from a culvert as pointed out by the accused.
The Courts found this evidence reliable and sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Compliance with Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code during the Seizure and Search:
The appellant's counsel argued that the seizure of the bloodstained shoes was not free from doubt as the witnesses were not "respectable inhabitants" as required by Section 103. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 103 applies to the search of a place, not a person. The Sub-Inspector seized the shoes directly from the accused, which did not constitute a search of a place. Regarding the search of the appellant's room, the Court acknowledged that while the witnesses may not have been "respectable inhabitants," this irregularity did not invalidate the search but only affected the weight of the evidence, which was a matter for the Courts of fact.

4. Question of Motive for the Crime:
The appellant's counsel challenged the findings on the question of motive, arguing that there was intimate friendship between the deceased and the appellant. The Courts below found that the appellant had a motive for the murder due to a liaison with the deceased's wife. The Supreme Court agreed that the evidence of motive was sufficient and was a matter for the Courts of fact to determine.

5. Legality and Weight of Evidence:
The appellant's counsel raised concerns about the malkhana register and the seizure list, suggesting they were not above suspicion due to different inks used. The Supreme Court held that these were matters for the Courts of fact and that the lower Courts had considered these issues and found them not to affect the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court found no illegality or serious irregularity in the procedure that would justify interference with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower Courts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and the death sentence imposed on the appellant. The Court found no substantial question of law or principle warranting further consideration and confirmed the reliability of the circumstantial evidence and the procedural correctness of the investigation and trial.