Article 136: Supreme Court explains scope of interference in criminal appeal by special leave

The Supreme Court recently explained the scope of interference by it in criminal appeals by special leave moved under Article 136 of the Constitution [Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Arunachal Pradesh]..A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari elaborated on the scope and limitations of its power under Article 136, which is an extraordinary jurisdiction that the top Court exercises when it entertains an appeal by special leave in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice..The Court ruled as follows:.1. Article 136 is an exceptional power to be used sparingly to prevent grave miscarriage of justice"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," the Court said..2. Re-appreciation of evidences only in rare and exceptional cases"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 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," the Court stated..3. Limited scope of interference with the concurrent findingsThe Court placed reliance on its decision in Subedar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1970), wherein it was observed,"This Court undoubtedly does not normally proceed to review and reappraise for itself the evidence in criminal cases when 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 cause of justice”Reliance was also placed on the decision in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat (1983), in which it was held that the Supreme Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unless the following is established:That the finding is based on no evidence; or That the finding is perverse, and no reasonable person could arrive at the same even if the evidence was taken at its face value; or The finding is based and built on inadmissible evidence which if excluded would negate the prosecution case or substantially discredit or impair it, or Some vital piece of evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the convict has been overlooked, disregarded or wrongly discarded.".4. Supreme Court is not a regular Court of appeal in every criminal case"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 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," the Court said..The Court made these observations while considering an appeal assailing a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The only contention of the appellant against the High Court's order was with regard to contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witness.Rejecting this contention, the top court observed:"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 & Another v. State of Maharashtra (2000), wherein 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."Therefore, the Court refused to interfere with the decision of the High Court and the trial court and dismissed the appeal. .[Read Judgment]