1965 (1) TMI 86 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authenticity and timing of the First Information Report (FIR)
2. Timing of the offense and identification of the assailants
3. Presence and reliability of eyewitnesses
4. Competency of the certificate granted by the High Court for appeal
5. Interpretation of Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution regarding the grant of certificates for appeal
6. Appropriateness of the death penalty given the circumstances

Detailed Analysis:

1. Authenticity and Timing of the First Information Report (FIR):
The High Court judges differed on whether the FIR was made on October 11, 1961, at 8:30 PM or much later. Mathur J. accepted the FIR as genuine, agreeing with the Sessions Judge's findings. Gyanendra Kumar J. doubted its authenticity, citing delays in dispatching the FIR and special report, and discrepancies in the documents supporting the FIR. Takru J., the third judge, agreed with Mathur J., stating that he did not find it necessary to discuss the FIR in detail but would have accepted it as genuine if required.

2. Timing of the Offense and Identification of the Assailants:
The High Court also debated whether the offense occurred at 6 PM or later when it was too dark to identify the assailants. Mathur J. concurred with the Sessions Judge's conclusion that the offense took place at 6 PM. Gyanendra Kumar J. believed the offense occurred later, making it difficult to identify the attackers due to lack of light. He pointed out inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies regarding the timing of the event.

3. Presence and Reliability of Eyewitnesses:
The reliability of the eyewitnesses was another point of contention. Mathur J. accepted the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, including Sangram Singh, Ved Ram, and Man Sukh. Gyanendra Kumar J. disbelieved Sangram Singh's presence at the scene, citing reasons such as the improbability of his accompanying the deceased and the absence of his cycle at the spot. He also doubted the credibility of Ved Ram and Man Sukh due to their previous history and possible motives for false testimony. Jia Lal, who stated the occurrence took place at 7 PM and was declared hostile by the prosecution, was believed by Gyanendra Kumar J.

4. Competency of the Certificate Granted by the High Court for Appeal:
The competency of the certificate granted by the High Court for appeal was questioned. The State argued that the certificate was incompetent based on settled views of the Supreme Court in previous cases. The appellants contended that the issue involved the interpretation of Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, which required a decision by a Bench of five Judges. The Supreme Court concluded that the certificate did not comply with the requirements of Article 134(1)(c), emphasizing that the High Court should exercise discretion sparingly and only in cases involving substantial questions of law or principle.

5. Interpretation of Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution:
Article 134(1)(c) allows the High Court to certify a case as fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court clarified that this power must be exercised with great circumspection and only in cases involving substantial questions of law or principle. Mere questions of fact should not be referred for decision. The Court cited previous cases to illustrate that the High Court should not attempt to create a jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to act as an ordinary Court of Criminal Appeal.

6. Appropriateness of the Death Penalty:
The appellants argued that the death penalty should be substituted with life imprisonment due to the long time that had passed. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that each case must be decided on its own facts and that the sentence of imprisonment for life can only be substituted if the facts justify it. The Court also dismissed the contention that the death penalty should not be imposed due to the differing opinions of the High Court judges, noting that both judges appeared to be in favor of the death sentence. The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty, citing the brutal nature of the offense.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions and sentences passed by the lower courts. The Court emphasized the importance of exercising discretion carefully when granting certificates for appeal under Article 134(1)(c) and reiterated that substantial questions of law or principle must be involved for such certification. The death penalty was deemed appropriate given the brutal nature of the offense.