Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 232 of 2007  

Charanjit & Ors.                                               …… Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab & Anr.                                   ….. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article  

136 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab &  

Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 768-SB of 1997  

& 769-SB of 1997 arising out of a complaint case.  

Facts of the case:

Page 2

2. The facts very briefly are that on 09.02.1989 at about  

5.00  a.m.  Shankar  Dass,  who  was  the  Principal  of  D.A.V.  

Higher  Secondary  School,  Balachaur,  was  shot  dead  by  

terrorists and Ramesh Kumar, son of the deceased Shankar  

Dass  lodged  FIR  No.  13  on  09.02.1989  in  Police  Station,  

Balachaur.  Thirty two persons of village Paili filed a petition  

before  the  SHO,  Police  Station,  Balachaur,  alleging  that  

terrorists frequent the house of the complainant in Village  

Paili.  The  appellants  who  were  posted  in  Police  Station,  

Balachaur went to the house of the complainant and picked  

up  the  complainant  and  one  Kamaljit  Kaur,  who  were  

working as ‘dai’ and nurse respectively, and brought them to  

the Police Station.  On 13.02.1989, the complainant sent a  

petition  to  the  Governor  of  Punjab  by  a  registered  letter  

alleging that she along with Kamaljit Kaur were taken to the  

Police Station on 09.02.1989 at 7.00 a.m. and were asked  

whether  the  extremists  were  frequenting  their  house  and  

when they replied in the negative they were tortured at the  

Police Station.  On the intervention of Maha Singh, President  

of the Para Medical Union, Kamaljit Kaur, was released, but  

2

Page 3

the complainant was not released.  The complainant further  

alleged in her petition to the Governor of Punjab that in the  

night of 09.02.1989, the appellants tortured her with patta,  

made  her  senseless  and  had  intercourse  with  her  and  

released  her  on  the  morning  of  10.02.1989  on  the  

intervention of the Panchayats of Villages Paili, Otal Majarh  

and  Unaramour.  Soon  after  the  release,  the  complainant  

disclosed to the members of Panchayat what had happened  

to her  in  the night  of  09.02.1989.   In  this  petition to the  

Governor of Punjab, the complainant made a request for an  

enquiry.   

3. When no action was taken against the appellants, the  

complainant  filed  a  criminal  complaint  before  the  Chief  

Judicial  Magistrate,  Hoshiarpur  on  25.07.1989  making  

substantially  the  same  allegations  against  the  appellants.  

The  Magistrate  recorded  the  preliminary  evidence  of  the  

complainant  and  took  cognizance  of  the  offences  under  

Sections  323 and 504 read with  Section  34 of  the  Indian  

Penal  Code  (for  short  ‘IPC’)  and  issued  summons  to  the  

appellants.  The  complainant  then  filed  a  petition  under  

3

Page 4

Section  482  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  (for  short  

“Cr.P.C.”)  contending  that  the  appellants  should  be  

summoned for standing trial for the offences under Sections  

366/342/376/506 read with Section 34 IPC.  The appellants  

also filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing  

the  complaint  as  well  as  the  order  of  the  Magistrate  

summoning  the  appellants.   Both  these  petitions  were  

disposed of by order dated 29.07.1991 with the direction to  

the Magistrate to hold an enquiry in respect of the offences  

described in the complaint.   The complaint was thereafter  

transferred  to  the  court  of  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  

Chandigarh,  by the High Court.  Thereafter,  the Magistrate  

took cognizance of offences under Sections 323/342/366/506  

read with Section 34 IPC and summoned the appellants and  

Hussan Lal.  The case was committed to the Sessions Court  

and  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Chandigarh,  was  

entrusted  with  the  case.   The  Additional  Sessions  Judge  

initially framed charges under Sections 366/504/342 and 323  

IPC to which the appellants pleaded not guilty, but thereafter  

by  order  dated  16.02.1995  the  High  Court  directed  the  

4

Page 5

Additional  Sessions  Judge  to  reconsider  the  framing  of  

charges against the appellants in the light of the allegations  

made  in  the  complaint  and  the  preliminary  evidence  

recorded in respect of the complaint.  The learned Additional  

Sessions Judge reframed the charges under Section 376 (2)  

(g) IPC to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and the  

appellants were tried.   

4. At the trial, the complainant was examined as PW-3 and  

she  reiterated  in  the  witness  box  her  version  in  the  

complaint.  The husband of the complainant, Gurmail Singh,  

was examined as PW-1 and, the neighbour of Gurmail Singh,  

Harbans Singh was examined as PW-2 and both PW-1 and  

PW-2 stated before the trial court that the complainant (PW-

3) was not released on the evening of 09.02.1989 and was  

released only at 4.30 p.m. on 10.02.1989 and when she was  

released on 10.02.1989, she was in a bad shape and she told  

them  about  the  torture  and  sexual  intercourse  that  was  

forced  upon  her  by  the  appellants  on  the  night  of  

09.02.1989.   The  appellants  in  their  statements  under  

Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the trial court, on the other hand,  

5

Page 6

took  the  defence  that  the  complainant  (PW-3)  along  with  

Kamaljit Kaur were actually released on 09.02.1989 at 6.00  

p.m. and they were handed over to the people of Panchayat  

to ensure that the complainant would not do anything wrong  

in  future  and  they  denied  that  they  had  any  sexual  

intercourse with the complainant and also stated that she  

was not detained in the evening or the night of 09.02.1989  

at the Police Station as alleged by her.  In support of their  

defence, the appellants examined witnesses and produced  

two documents Ex. DW-1A and Ex. DW-1B.   

5. The trial  court,  however,  rejected the defence of  the  

appellants and instead held that the testimony of PW-3 as  

corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who were  

present  at  the gathering immediately  after  the release of  

PW-3  clearly  establishes  that  PW-3  was  released  on  

10.02.1989 and at the time of her release she was in a bad  

shape and in torn clothes and was bleeding and that she had  

told her tale of sufferings before PW-1 and PW-2 by giving  

details of the incident of rape at the hands of the appellants.  

6

Page 7

The trial  court  accordingly convicted the appellants under  

Sections  323/34,  504/34,  376(2)(a)  and 376(2)(g)  IPC  and  

sentenced  them  to  rigorous  imprisonment  for  various  

periods which were to run concurrently, the maximum being  

10  years  for  the  offences  under  Sections  376(2)(a)  and  

376(2)(g)  IPC.   Aggrieved,  the  appellants,  Charanjit  and  

Kashmiri Lal filed Criminal Appeal No. 768-SB of 1997 and  

Radha Krishan filed Criminal Appeal No. 769-SB of 1997, but  

by  the  impugned  common  judgment,  the  High  Court  has  

dismissed their appeals.   

Contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties:  

6. Mr.  P.  H.  Parekh,  learned counsel  for  the  appellants,  

submitted that the finding of the trial court as well as the  

High Court that PW-3 was not released on 09.02.1989 at 6  

p.m. and was detained in the Police Station on the night of  

09.02.1989 and raped by the police is not at all correct.  He  

submitted that this finding is based on the evidence of PW-3  

but PW-3 ought not to have been believed because she had  

close links  with  the terrorists  who had pressurized  her  to  

implicate the appellants falsely in the case and therefore it  

7

Page 8

was unsafe to rely on her evidence.  In this connection, he  

submitted  that  one  of  the  terrorists  Hazura  Singh  was  a  

relative of PW-3 and PW-3 used to give shelter to him and  

this would be clear from the letter dated 09.02.1989 of the  

villagers marked as Ex.DW1/B.  He submitted that PW-3 had  

herself given an earlier statement in an enquiry conducted  

by the Superintendent of Police Mr. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa  

that she had made the complaint against the appellants on  

someone’s instigation and she does not want any action to  

be taken on her complaint.  

7. Mr. Parekh next submitted that the trial court and the  

High Court have held that the evidence of PW-3 has been  

corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who claimed  

to have gone to the Police Station on 10.02.1989 at 5.30  

p.m.  when  PW-3  was  released  but  in  her  petition  dated  

13.02.1989  to  the  Governor  (Ex.PW-3/A)  she  has  not  

mentioned that PW-1 and PW-2 were present when she was  

released at the intervention of the Panchayat of village Paili,  

Otal Majarh and Unaramour on 10.02.1989.  He submitted  

8

Page 9

that the trial court and the High Court, therefore, should not  

have relied on the corroboration of PW-1 and PW-2.

8. Mr. Parekh next submitted that the trial court and the  

High Court  ought to have considered the evidence led on  

behalf of the defence.  He referred to the evidence of DW-2  

as well as Ex.DW1/A to submit that PW-3 was released on  

09.02.1989 itself.  He also referred to the evidence of DW-

10,  who  has  stated  that  PW-3  had  returned  home  on  

09.02.1989 at about 9.00 p.m.  He submitted that the case  

of the prosecution is that PW-3 went to the civil hospital at  

Balachaur for her medical examination and thereafter to the  

hospital at Saroa but the doctors of the two hospitals did not  

conduct the medical examination to avoid a conflict with the  

police, and therefore the appellants examined the doctors of  

the two hospitals DW-11 and DW-12, and both DW-11 and  

DW-12  have  denied  that  PW-3  approached  them  for  her  

medical examination.  Mr. Parekh vehemently submitted that  

there is thus no medical evidence to support the allegation  

of rape and the trial court and the High Court could not have  

held the appellants guilty of the offence of rape.

9

Page 10

9. Mr. Parekh submitted that the main reason why the trial  

court  and the  High Court  disbelieved the  defence version  

was that  the records  of  the  Police  Station  relating  to  the  

arrest of PW-3 were not produced by the appellants before  

the Court.  He submitted that in the present case there was  

no  arrest  of  PW-3  at  all  and  she  was  picked  up  only  for  

interrogation and for this reason no records were maintained  

by  the  Police  Station.   He  vehemently  argued  that  the  

prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the  

appellants  beyond  reasonable  doubt  and  hence  they  are  

entitled to acquittal.  

10. Learned  counsel  for  the  State  Mr.  Kuldip  Singh  

submitted that it is not believable that PW-1, husband of PW-

3 did not accompany the Panchayat to the Police Station for  

release of PW-3 on 10.02.1989.  He submitted that Ex. DW-

1/A dated 09.02.1989 on which the appellants relied on for  

their case that PW-3 was released on 09.02.1989 itself has  

not been signed by PW-1, the husband of PW-3.  He referred  

to the evidence of PW-3 to show how she was tortured and  

10

Page 11

raped by the appellants one after the other and submitted  

that the evidence of PW-3 is believable.  He submitted that  

PW-1, the husband of PW-3 as well as PW-2, the neighbour of  

PW-1 who had accompanied PW-1 to the Police Station on  

10.02.1989,  have  also  deposed that  soon after  PW-3 was  

released from the Police Station she told them how she was  

humiliated and raped by the appellants against her consent  

after taking liquor.  He submitted that the evidence of PW-3  

as  corroborated  by  the  evidence  of  PW-1  and  PW-2  was  

sufficient for the trial court and the High Court to hold the  

appellants  guilty  of  the  offences  under  Sections  323/34,  

504/34 and 376 2(a) and 2(g), IPC and to hold the appellant  

Radha Krishan guilty also of the offence under Section 342,  

IPC.  

Findings of the Court

11. We have considered the contention of Mr.  Parekh on  

behalf  of  the  appellants  that  PW-3  has  sought  to  falsely  

implicate the appellants on account of her close links with  

the  terrorists  and  on  account  of  the  pressure  from  the  

11

Page 12

terrorists, but no evidence as such has been led on behalf of  

the defence to show that PW-3 has implicated the appellants  

under the influence of the terrorists.  Mr. Parekh relied on  

Ext.DW-1/B dated 09.02.1989 said to have been signed by  

32 villagers in which it  is stated that the villagers believe  

that  terrorists  were  frequenting  the  house  of  PW-3  and  

staying in her house and taking their meals and, therefore,  

PW-3  should  be  brought  and  interrogated  about  those  

terrorists, but Ext.DW-1/B is no proof of the fact that PW-3  

has made the allegations of rape against the appellants on  

the pressure of the terrorists.  We have also considered the  

submission  of  Mr.  Parekh  that  PW-3  had  herself  given  a  

statement in the inquiry conducted by the Superintendent of  

Police, Mr. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, that she had made the  

complaint  against  the  appellants  at  someone’s  instigation  

and  she  does  not  want  any  action  to  be  taken  on  her  

complaint.    This  statement  of  PW-3  is  not  substantive  

evidence before the Court and at best can be treated as a  

previous statement to contradict the substantive evidence of  

PW-3 given in Court.  Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act  

12

Page 13

states that a witness may be cross-examined as to previous  

statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing,  

and if  it  is  intended to  contradict  him by the writing,  his  

attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called  

to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of  

contradicting  him.   In  the  cross-examination  of  PW-3,  a  

question was put whether S.P.  Mr.  Harbhajan Singh Bajwa  

conducted the inquiry and recorded her statement and she  

has stated that he did conduct an inquiry but she does not  

know what he had recorded.  She has further stated that her  

signatures  were obtained on the statement  but  she knew  

only how to write her name and cannot read or write Punjabi  

except appending her signatures.  In view of the aforesaid  

statement  made  by  PW-3  in  her  cross-examination,  her  

statement  recorded  in  the  inquiry  conducted  by  S.P.  Mr.  

Harbhajan  Singh  Bajwa  cannot  be  used  to  contradict  the  

evidence of PW-3 given in Court.   

12. We have also considered the submission of Mr. Parekh  

that  in  the  petition  dated  13.02.1989  to  the  Governor  

(Ex.PW-3/A), PW-3 had not mentioned that PW-1 and PW-2  

13

Page 14

were present when she was released at the intervention of  

the Panchayat of village Paili, Otal Majarh and Unaramour on  

10.02.1989.  This statement of PW-3 in the petition dated  

13.02.1989 is not substantive evidence before the Court and  

can only be treated as a previous statement to contradict  

the substantive evidence of PW-3 given in Court by putting a  

question to PW-3 in course of her cross-examination under  

Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.  If such a question  

was put in the cross-examination, PW-3 would have got an  

opportunity to explain why she had not specifically stated in  

the  petition dated 13.02.1989 to the Governor (Ex.PW-3/A)  

that her husband (PW-1) and the neighbour (PW-2) were also  

present when she was released at the intervention of the  

Panchayat  of  village Paili,  Otal  Majarh  and Unaramour  on  

10.02.1989.  In absence of any such question put to PW-3 in  

her cross-examination, the omission of the names of PW-1  

and PW-2 in the petition dated 13.02.1989 to the Governor  

(Ex.PW-3/A)  cannot  be  taken  as  contradictory  to  the  

evidence of PW-3.  Hence, the evidence of PW-3 as well as  

that of PW-1 and PW-2 that on 10.02.1982, PW-1 and PW-2  

14

Page 15

were present when PW-3 was released at 4.30 p.m. could not  

have been disbelieved by the Court.

13.  We have perused the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and  

PW-3  and  we  find  that  the  depositions  of  these  three  

witnesses support the findings of the trial court and the High  

Court  that  PW-3  was  not  released  at  6.00  p.m.  on  

09.02.1989 but  4.30 p.m.  on 10.02.1989.   As  against  the  

evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, the appellants examined  

DW-1,  the  Head  Constable,  who  produced  the  record  of  

Police  Station,  Balachaur  relating  to  FIR  No.13  dated  

09.02.1989 and he has stated that the investigation of the  

case  was  conducted  by  the  appellant-Radha  Krishan,  the  

then  SHO  of  Police  Station,  Balachaur,  and  PW-3  was  

interrogated by him and PW-3 was handed over to Shanker  

Singh, Maha Singh, Dhanpat, Sarpanch of village Pillai and  

others as per the document Ext.DW1/A dated 09.02.1989,  

but he has admitted in his cross-examination that he has no  

personal knowledge of the investigation and he did not know  

PW-3 and had just produced the record.  The appellants have  

also examined DW-2 and he has stated in his examination-

15

Page 16

in-chief that he along with others who had been to the Police  

Station requested the appellant-Radha Krishan to release the  

two  ladies  in  case  they  were  no  longer  required  for  

interrogation and the two ladies,  PW-3 and Kamaljit  Kaur,  

were released at  6.00 p.m.  on 09.02.1989 after  getting a  

writing from them (Ext.DW1/A) to the effect  that they will  

produce them before the police if need be at a future date.  

In cross-examination, however, DW-2 admitted that he did  

not  know  whether  any  entry  was  recorded  at  the  Police  

Station  for  calling  the  two  ladies  to  the  Police  Station,  

Balachaur  and whether  any entry  was recorded regarding  

their release and he was also not aware whether Ext.DW1/A  

was  recorded  in  the  Daily  Diary  Register  of  the  Police  

Station, Balachaur.    Additional M.H.C. Harminder Singh of  

Police  Station,  Balachaur  was  examined  as  DW-4  and  he  

produced the FIR Register containing the FIR No.13 dated  

09.02.1989  of  Police  Station,  Balachaur  under  Section  

302/34, IPC and others and has admitted that there was no  

jimni specifically  incorporating  the  facts  of  execution  of  

Ext.DW1/A.    The  Head  Constable  Gurdev  Dass  of  Police  

16

Page 17

Station, Balachaur was examined as DW-9 and he has stated  

that  he  was  posted  in  Police  Station,  Balachaur  from  

20.11.1988 to April, 1991 and his duty hours on 09.02.1989  

and 10.02.1989 were from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. and no  

lady by the name of PW-3 was confined in the police lock up,  

but  he has stated that  he has not  brought  any record of  

Police Station,  Balachaur and he has made the statement  

from  his  memory  only.   He  has,  however,  admitted  that  

entries were to be made in Daily Diary Register kept in the  

Police  Station  as  and  when  any  police  official  leaves  the  

Police Station or returns to the Police Station and similarly, if  

anybody other than police officials enters or  departs from  

the Police Station.  Thus, except the document Ext.DW1/A,  

the relevant records of Police Station, Balachaur such as the  

Daily  Diary  Register  were  not  produced  to  support  the  

defence case that PW-3 was picked up for interrogation on  

the morning of 09.02.1989 and was released at 6.00 p.m. on  

09.02.1989 and for this reason both the trial court and the  

High Court rejected the defence case and instead believed  

the evidence of PW-1,  PW-2 and PW-3 that PW-3 was not  

17

Page 18

released  at  6.00  p.m.  on  09.02.1989,  but  was  detained  

during the night of 09.02.1989 and was released only on the  

next day in the evening on 10.02.1989.

14. The  aforesaid  discussion  would  show  that  the  

prosecution adduced evidence through PW-1, PW-2 and PW-

3  that  PW-3  was  not  released from the  Police  Station  on  

09.02.1989  at  6.00  p.m.,  but  was  actually  released  on  

10.02.1989 at 4.30 p.m.  This evidence could be discarded  

by the Court only if reliable evidence was produced by the  

defence to establish that PW-3 was actually released from  

the Police Station at 6.00 p.m. on 09.02.1989.   The most  

relevant evidence to establish this defence of the appellants  

would have been the records of the Police Station.  As has  

been provided in Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, an  

entry in any public or other official book, register or record or  

an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact,  

and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official  

duty,  is  itself  a  relevant  fact.   The  Punjab  Police  Rules  

provides that Register No. II shall be maintained in the Police  

Station  and  Rule  22.49  in  Chapter  22  enumerates  the  

18

Page 19

matters to be entered in Register No. II. These include the  

following matters in clauses (c) and (h) of Rule 22.49, which  

are extracted hereinbelow:   

“(c) The hour of arrival and departure on  duty  at  or  from a  police  station  of  all  enrolled police officers of whatever rank,  whether posted at the police station or  elsewhere,  with  a  statement  of  the  nature of their duty. This entry shall be  made immediately on arrival or prior to  the  departure of  the  officer  concerned  and  shall  be  attested  by  the  latter  personally by signature or seal.

Note.  -  The  term  Police  Station  will  include  all  places  such  as  Police  Lines  and Police Posts where Register No. II is  maintained.”

“(h) All arrivals at, and dispatches from,  the police station of persons in custody,  and  all  admissions  to,  and  removals  from,  the  police  station  lock-ups,  whether  temporary  or  otherwise,  the  exact hour being given in every case.”

That the aforesaid matters are required to be maintained in  

the Daily Diary Register kept in the Police Station has been  

admitted by DW-9 in his evidence.  Thus, even if PW-3 was  

not  arrested  as  contended  by  Mr.  Parekh,  records  were  

19

Page 20

required to be maintained in Police Station, Balachaur with  

regard to both the arrivals of the appellants and PW-3 and  

their  departure  giving  the  exact  hour  of  arrival  and  

departure.  Moreover,  if  Ex.DW1/A was to be treated as a  

genuine  document,  records  of  Police  Station,  Balachaur,  

containing relevant entries ought to have been produced by  

the  appellants  to  show  that  Ex.DW1/A  was  

contemporaneously  created  on  09.02.1989.   Since  the  

appellants  did  not  produce  the  aforesaid  records  in  their  

defence, the trial court and the High Court acted within their  

powers to reject the defence of the appellants and instead  

believe the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that PW-3 was  

released only on 10.02.1989 at 4.30 p.m.

15. We further find that the trial court and the High Court  

have  recorded  the  findings  of  rape  committed  by  the  

appellants on PW-3 because of her consistent version in her  

petition dated 13.02.1989 (Ext.P3/A) to the Governor made  

within  a  few  days  of  her  release  from  Police  Station  on  

09.02.1989,  her  complaint  dated  25.07.1989  and  her  

evidence in Court.  PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have deposed that  

20

Page 21

an attempt was made for a medical examination in the Civil  

Hospital,  Balachaur,  and  the  hospital  at  Saroa  but  the  

doctors  refused  to  conduct  the  medical  examination  on  

account of the pressure from the appellant-Radha Krishan,  

but  DW-11  and  DW-12,  the  doctors  in  the  hospital,  have  

denied  that  they  had  refused  to  conduct  the  medical  

examination.  The result is that there is no medical evidence  

to support the allegation of rape made by PW-3 against the  

appellants.  The High Court, however, has held that as PW-3  

was  not  a  young  woman,  medical  examination  was  not  

significant and absence of medical examination may not be  

sufficient to disbelieve PW-3 if her story stands on its own.  

The High Court has found that she has consistently stated in  

her petition dated 13.02.1989 to the Governor of Punjab, in  

her complaint dated 25.07.1989 before the Magistrate and in  

her deposition in Court that she was detained in the night  

and raped by the appellants and both the trial court and the  

High Court have found that soon after she was released from  

the  Police  Station  on  10.02.1989,  she  stated  before  her  

husband (PW-1) and the neighbour   (PW-2) that she had  

21

Page 22

been  raped  by  the  appellants  and  that  she  was  bleeding  

profusely.   The  trial  court  and  the  High  Court,  therefore,  

have  come  to  the  finding  of  guilt  of  rape  against  the  

appellants relying on the evidence of PW-3 as corroborated  

by the  evidence of  PW-1,  PW-2 under  Section 157 of  the  

Indian Evidence Act.

16. Thus, the trial court and the High Court have recorded  

concurrent findings of facts holding the appellants guilty of  

the offences under Sections 323/34, 504/34, 376(2)(a) and  

376(2)(g) IPC and the appellant-Radha Krishan guilty of the  

offence under Section 342 IPC also.  It has been repeatedly  

held by this Court that even though the powers of this Court  

under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  are  very  wide,  in  

criminal  appeals  this  Court  does  not  interfere  with  the  

concurrent  findings  of  facts,  save  in  exceptional  

circumstances where there has been grave miscarriage of  

justice  (Sri  Sambhu  Das  and  Another  v.  State  of  Assam  

[(2010) 10 SCC 374].  As we have found that the concurrent  

findings of  facts  recorded by the trial  court  and the High  

Court in this case are based on legal evidence and there is  

22

Page 23

no miscarriage of justice as such by the two courts while  

arriving at said findings, we are not inclined to disturb the  

impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  in  exercise  of  our  

discretion  under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  and  we  

accordingly dismiss the appeal.   

.……………………….J.                                                                (A. K. Patnaik)

………………………..J.                                                                (Gyan Sudha Misra) New Delhi, July 04, 2013.    

23