1979 (3) TMI 218 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and Acquittal of the Accused
2. Competence of Private Parties to Invoke Jurisdiction under Article 136
3. Evaluation of Evidence and Dying Declarations
4. High Court's Reasoning for Acquittal
5. Supreme Court's Jurisdiction and Grounds for Interference

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Acquittal of the Accused:
The first accused, Sadhanantham, was convicted under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and two years for rioting. The other four accused were convicted under Sections 147, 323, and 149 read with 323, and sentenced to one year of imprisonment on each count. The High Court of Madras acquitted all the accused, leading to an appeal by the brother of the deceased after obtaining special leave from the Supreme Court.

2. Competence of Private Parties to Invoke Jurisdiction under Article 136:
The Supreme Court addressed the doubt regarding the competence of private parties to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution against a High Court's acquittal judgment. The Court clarified that its appellate power under Article 136 is plenary and exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law to meet the pressing demands of justice. The Court emphasized that it could entertain appeals against judgments of acquittal at the instance of private parties, as the exercise of this power is not circumscribed by any limitation regarding who may invoke it.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Dying Declarations:
The prosecution relied on direct witnesses (PWs 1, 2, 3, and 5) and two dying declarations (Exhibits P-1 and P-6) made by the deceased. The High Court rejected this evidence, primarily due to the unexplained injury on one Ramalingam and perceived inconsistencies between the dying declarations. The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence, noting that Ramalingam was introduced surreptitiously during cross-examination and had no established connection to either party. The Court found that the High Court erred in rejecting the dying declarations on the ground that Exhibit P-1 was recorded later than Exhibit P-6, emphasizing that Exhibit P-1 was recorded shortly after the occurrence, while Exhibit P-6 was recorded hours later when the deceased's condition had deteriorated.

4. High Court's Reasoning for Acquittal:
The High Court acquitted the accused, citing the failure of the prosecution to explain Ramalingam's injury and rejecting the testimony of direct witnesses as they were interested parties. The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, noting that the injury to Ramalingam was irrelevant to the case and that the direct witnesses' testimonies were unjustly dismissed. The Court highlighted that the High Court indulged in speculation and approached the evidence from the wrong perspective.

5. Supreme Court's Jurisdiction and Grounds for Interference:
The Supreme Court reiterated its jurisdiction under Article 136, stating that it would interfere with acquittals only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the High Court's decision is based on irrelevant grounds or results in a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the High Court's acquittal was based on irrelevant considerations and failed to properly evaluate the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge against the first accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's acquittal and restoring the Sessions Judge's conviction and sentence against the first accused, Sadhanantham, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized the importance of evaluating evidence correctly and the competence of private parties to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 136.