Page 1

REPORTABLE               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.423 OF 2015

DEVRAJ   ... APPELLANT

                          VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH              ... RESPONDNET

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This  appeal  has  been  filed  against  the

judgment and order dated 7th January, 2013 of the High

Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 780 of

2008. The First Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions

Trial  No.396  of  2006  had  convicted  the

appellant-Devraj   and   Dinda  @  Deenanath  under

Section 302 and 201 IPC and awarded imprisonment for

life  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-  each  for  the

charge  levelled  under  Section  302  IPC  and  RI  for

three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for

the charge under Section 201 IPC. Four other accused

were  acquitted  by  the  First  Additional  Sessions

1

Page 2

Judge. The High Court in Criminal Appeal No.780 of

2008  although  acquitted  the  accused   Dinda  @

Deenanath,  it  confirmed  the  conviction  of  the

appellant under Section 302 IPC.  The High Court has

set aside the conviction and sentence of Devraj under

Section 201 IPC.  

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order  of the

High Court, Devraj has come up in this appeal.

3. The prosecution case in brief is:

There  existed  a  land  dispute  between  the

deceased Devi Prasad @ Prachar and Devraj, Dinda @

Deenanath. Devraj and  Dinda @ Deenanath are real

brothers  whereas  deceased  Devi  Prasad  was  their

cousin brother. On 26th June, 2006, after 8 p.m. when

deceased Devi Prasad was going along with one Ratan

Singh Guruji in a motorcycle he was intercepted by

five  persons  near  pakkar  tree.  The  deceased  was

beaten by geda  and lathi by Devraj, Dinda and others

and after killing him his body along with motorcycle

was thrown below Rakhet Pulia. The body was seen on

2

Page 3

next day morning by a boy of village who informed the

wife of the deceased. Thereafter, First Information

Report was lodged by Anita Bai at 10.15 a.m. on 27th

June, 2006. Police official came on the spot prepared

death panchnama and site plan. The statements from

various  persons  were  recorded.  The  charges  were

framed  against  six  accused  under  Section  147,

148,149, 302 and 201 IPC. The accused Sheonath, Thema

@ Vishwanath, Devraj,  Dinda @ Deenanath, Khoru and

Dayalal were sent for trial.  

4. The  prosecution  examined  20  witnesses  and

placed  reliance  on  various  exhibits.  Learned

Additional  Sessions  Judge  after  examining  the

statements of witnesses held charges under Section

302 and 201 IPC proved against accused Devraj and

Dinda @ Deenanath, other four accused were acquitted

by the Trial Court.

5. The  Trial  Court  placed  heavy  reliance  on

witnesses  PW.8-Ratan  Singh,  PW.13-Shivlochan  and

PW.16-Ajar Das who were found to be eye-witnesses.

The statements of witnesses were found corroboration

from  other  evidence.  Although  witnesses

3

Page 4

PW.13-Shivlochan  and  PW.16-Ajar  Das  were  declared

hostile witnesses and they were cross-examined but

the  Trial Court  relied on  their statements  having

found to be truthful and worth reliance.

6. Both Devraj and Dinda @ Deenanath filed an

appeal before the High Court. The High Court vide its

judgment and order dated 7th January, 2013 acquitted

Dinda @ Deenanath from all the charges. However, it

confirmed  the  conviction  of  the  appellant-Devraj

under  Section  302  IPC  while  setting  aside  the

conviction under Section 201 IPC.

7. Devraj  is  before  us  in  this  appeal.  Only

Devraj being in this appeal, we need to confine our

discussion with regard to the evidence against Devraj

only and as to whether the courts below on valid

materials and evidence were justified in convicting

Devraj.

8. We  have  heard  Shri  Akshat  Shrivastava,

learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri

C.D. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for

the State.

4

Page 5

9. Learned counsel for the appellant in support

of the appeal contended that the courts below have

relied  on  three  eye-witnesses  namely  PW.8-Ratan

Singh,  PW.13-Shivlochan  and  PW.16-  Ajar  Das.

PW.13-Shivlochan  and  PW.16-Ajar  Das  having  been

declared hostile witnesses, their evidence could not

have  been  relied  and  PW.8-Ratan  Singh,  another

eye-witness  having  not  stated  that  Devraj  had

assaulted the deceased hence there was no evidence

worth  name  to  convict  the  accused-Devraj.  It  is

further contended that even the eye-witnesses, PW.13

and PW.16 had only stated that they have heard the

voice of Devraj, the prosecution ought to have proved

that witnesses had recognised the voice of Devraj and

Devi  Prasad.  The  witnesses  have  only  stated  that

Devraj had assaulted Devi Prasad @ Prachar by Danda.

It has not been proved that injury by Danda, if any,

was sufficient to kill Devi Prasad. The Doctor in his

evidence  has  stated  that  injuries  which  were

sustained  by  Devi  Prasad  could  be  possible  by  an

accident.  Thus,  the  prosecution  failed  to  prove

beyond reasonable doubt that it was Devraj who killed

5

Page 6

Devi  Prasad  @  Prachar.  There  was  contradiction

between the statements of eye-witnesses, which has

not been adverted  to by the courts below.

10. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for

the  State supporting  the judgment  of courts  below

contended that incriminating evidence on the record

are sufficient to convict the accused-Devraj. All the

eye-witnesses  have  proved  the  presence  of

accused-Devraj. The evidence of PW.13 and PW.16 was

wholly  reliable  and  even  if  they  were  declared

hostile witnesses their examination-in-chief and the

cross-examination does not in any manner weaken the

evidentiary  value  of  their  evidence  that  Devraj

assaulted  Devi  Prasad  on  the  late  evening  of  26th

June,  2006.  Several  witnesses  have  testified  that

there was land dispute between deceased-Devi Prasad

and  Devraj and  there being  animosity between  Devi

Prasad and Devraj there was a motive to kill the

deceased. The judgment of the Trial Court is based on

correct appreciation of evidence. The High Court also

having  examined  the  statements  of  witnesses  and

having  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was

6

Page 7

sufficient material on record to convict Devraj there

is  no  ground  for  interference  by  this  Court  in

exercise  of jurisdiction  under Article  136 of  the

Constitution of India. It is well settled that this

Court shall not reappraise the evidence and interfere

with  concurrent findings  of facts  recorded by  the

courts below which are sufficient for upholding the

conviction of the accused.

11. We  have  considered  the  arguments  made  by  the

learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the records. The original records of the Trial Court

produced  before  us  including  the  statements  of

witnesses have also been perused by us.

12. In the present case the deceased-Devi Prasad was

going along with Ratan Guruji from his house on a

motorcycle  on  Panchayat  Road   at  about  8  p.m.

Deceased left  his house on a motorcycle with Ratan

Singh  Guruji  as  pillion  rider  for  dropping  Ratan

Singh at village Chendra. On the Panchayat Road near

pakkar  tree, the  deceased was  intercepted and  was

asked to stop the motorcycle by five persons. The

quarrel  took  place  between  the  deceased  and  his

7

Page 8

interceptors. The witnesses have specially mentioned

that Devraj and  Dinda @ Deenanath were present on

the  spot  and  Devraj  hit  and  gave  lathi  blows  on

deceased. The witnesses who saw the deceased being

assaulted are Ratan Guruji, Shivlochan and Ajar Das.

It is useful to re-capitulate the statements of the

above eye-witnesses. Ratan Singh-PW.8 has stated that

he had gone to Devi Prasad's house and after 8 p.m.

he  along  with  Devi  Prasad  left  his  house  on  a

motorcycle  and  as  soon  as  they  reached  at  some

distance from his house five persons were standing

near the pakkar tree. Those persons got the vehicle

stopped. Dinda came towards him (Ratan Guruji), he

was having a torch and switched on the torch. In the

meanwhile, a person ran from back side with a stick

and spoke “kill him, what are you looking' and he

gave stick blow to Devi Prasad. On receiving injury

Devi Prasad ran towards back side crying “save save”.

Ratan Singh further stated that Shivlochan came on

the spot and told him to come with him as there was

risk  there.  PW.8-Ratan  Singh  further  stated  that

there was a land dispute between Devi Prasad and Dev

8

Page 9

Raj.

13. Shivlochan-PW.13  is  a  witness  whose  house  is

situated  near  the  place  where  Devi  Prasad  was

stopped.  The  Exhibit  No.P.7  which  is  a  site  plan

prepared at the spot clearly indicates the house of

Shivlochan is at indication mark No.5. Shivlochan in

his  statement  has  stated  that  he  knew  both  the

accused-Devraj and deceased-Devi Prasad. Shivlochan

belongs  to  the  same  village  Sayar  Rai  of  which

accused  and  deceased  belonged.  In

examination-in-chief, Shivlochan stated that he was

returning to his house from his sister's house when

he  saw the  deceased-Devi Prasad  near pakkar  tree.

Devraj came from the front and some dialogues entered

between  them.  Thereafter,  Devraj  assaulted  Devi

Prasad  by  wood  or  stone.  Thereafter,  Devi  Prasad

started running. The witness was cross-examined on

behalf of the accused and in his cross-examination he

stated that he heard the voice of Devraj who was

saying “Maro Sale Ko” and it was Devraj who hit the

Devi  Prasad @  Prachar and  Prachar shouted  “Bachao

Bachao” which he heard.

9

Page 10

14. Another  eye-witness  PW.16-Ajar  Das  has  been

examined by the prosecution. The house of Ajar Das is

also near to the scene  of occurrence which is shown

in  Exhibit  No.P-7  as  indication  mark  8.  Ajar  Das

stated that he knew the deceased and the accused.

Deceased Devi Prasad was cousin brother of Devraj and

Dinda  @  Deenanath.  The  quarrel  had  earlier  taken

place  between  Devi  Prasad  and  Devraj.   He  was

returning to his house from village Gangapur and when

he  was  going  through    Panchayat  Road  adjoining

pakkar tree near Jam tree accused Devi Prasad had

given  three  lathi  blows  to  Devi  Prasad.  Accused

Devraj  told  Shivlochan  that  he  should  run  away

otherwise he will also be assaulted on which he ran

away.  The prosecution took permission of the Court

for asking question after declaring the witness as

hostile. On which the witness again stated that he

has  forbidden Devraj  from beating  Devi Prasad.  He

further  stated  that  he  had  also  seen  that  while

beating Devi Prasad, Devraj was saying that he has

been tortured throughout life. Devraj and Dinda had

beaten the deceased in the night and the dead body of

10

Page 11

Devi Parasad was found below the Rakhet Pulia in the

morning. He further stated that due to land dispute

between  Devi  Prasad  and  Devraj  and  Dinda,  they

entered into “marpeet”. In the cross-examination he

stated that he has seen accused-Devraj giving three

lathi blows. However, he does not know to whom the

blows  were  given  since  it  was  dark.  There  is

overwhelming evidence on the record to prove the land

dispute  between  Devraj,  Dinda  with  Devi

Prasad-deceased.

15. Anita  Bai-PW.7  wife  of  the  deceased,  Ratan

Singh-PW.8,  Shivlochan-PW.13,  Shivram-PW.18,Ram

Kewal-PW.3 and Narayan Prasad-PW.10 all had stated

that there was a land dispute between the parties.

Witness  PW.10-Narayan  Prasad  had  also  stated  that

with regard to the land dispute the leg of Devraj was

broken and there was animosity between Devi Prasad

and accused-Devraj and Dinda.  The arguments which

have  been  raised  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant that PW.13 and PW.16 having been declared

as hostile witnesses their evidence ought not to have

been relied by the courts below more so when Ratan

11

Page 12

Singh another eye-witness does not say that deceased

Devi Prasad was assaulted by Devraj. At this juncture

it is relevant to examine the question as to what

extent evidence of hostile witnesses can be relied by

the Court while recording conviction.

16. In a three-Judge bench judgment of this Court in

Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389,

the  witness Jagat  Singh was  declared hostile.  The

appellant was convicted under Section 165A IPC. It

was contended that the whole case is destroyed since

the witness was declared as hostile. In the aforesaid

decision  the Court held that there is no legal bar

to  base  a  conviction  upon  his  testimony  if

corroborated  by  other  reliable  evidence.  Following

was stated in paragraph 8:

“8.  We  have  carefully  perused  the evidence  of  Jagat  Singh,  who  was examined in the trial after more than a year  of  detection  of  the  case.  The prosecution  could  have  even  avoided requesting  for  permission  to cross-examine the witness under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. But the fact that the court gave permission to the prosecutor  to  cross-examine  his  own witness,  thus  characterising  him  as, what is described as a hostile witness,

12

Page 13

does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a  conviction  upon  his  testimony  if corroborated by other reliable evidence. We are satisfied in this case that the evidence of Jagat Singh, but for whose prompt  assistance  the  case  would  not have  seen  the  light  of  day  and  whose statement had immediately been recorded by the D.S.P., is amply corroborated by other  evidence  mentioned  above  to inspire  confidence  in  his  testimony. Apart from that the fact of recovery of the  gold  coins  in  the  pocket  of  the appellant gave a seal of finality to the truth  of  the  charge  against  the appellant. If Jagat Singh had accepted the  bribe  he  would  have  been  guilty under  Section  161  IPC.  There  is, therefore,  clear  abetment  by  the appellant of the offence under Section 161 IPC and the ingredients of Section 165-A IPC are established against him.”

17. Another  judgment  which  needs  to  be  noted  is

Khujji v. State of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627. This Court

in the above case held that merely because a witness

was declared hostile, his entire evidence cannot be

treated as effaced from the record,his testimony, to

the  extent  found  reliable,  can  be  acted  upon.  In

paragraph 6 following was observed:

“6......The evidence of PW 3 Kishan Lal and PW 4 Ramesh came to be rejected by the  trial  court  because  they  were

13

Page 14

declared  hostile  to  the  prosecution  by the  learned  Public  Prosecutor  as  they refused to identify the appellant and his companions in the dock as the assailants of  the  deceased.  But  counsel  for  the State is right when he submits that the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not wholly effaced from the record and that  part  of  the  evidence  which  is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon. It  seems  to  be  well  settled  by  the decisions of this Court — Bhagwan Singh v.  State  of  Haryana,(1976)  1  SCC  389, Rabindra  Kumar  Dey  v.  State  of  Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233 and Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka,(1980) 1 SCC 30, — that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be  rejected  in  toto  merely  because  the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such  witnesses  cannot  be  treated  as effaced  or  washed  off  the  record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be  dependable  on  a  careful  scrutiny thereof.....”

18. The above propositions have again been reiterated

by this Court in  Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab,

(2015) 3 SCC 220, where in paragraph 31 following has

been stated:

“31. The  next  aspect  which requires  to  be  adverted  to  is whether  testimony  of  a  hostile evidence that has come on record should be relied upon or not. Mr. Jain,  learned  senior  counsel  for the appellant would contend that as PW-7  has  totally  resiled  in  his

14

Page 15

cross-examination, his evidence is to  be  discarded  in  toto.  On  a perusal  of  the  testimony  of  the said witness, it is evincible that in  examination-in-chief,  he  has supported the prosecution story in entirety  and  in  the cross-examination he has taken the path of prevarication. In  Bhagwan Singh V. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389, it has been laid down that even if a witness is characterized has a hostile  witness,  his  evidence  is not  completely  effaced.  The  said evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base  a  conviction  upon  his testimony, if corroborated by other reliable  evidence.  In  Khuji  @ Surendra Tiwari V. State of Madhya Pradesh,(1991) 3 SCC 627, the Court after referring  to  the  authorities  in Bhagwan  Singh  (supra),  Rabindra Kumar Dey V. State of Orissa,(1976) 4 SCC  233 and  Syad Akbar V. State of Karnataka,(1980)  1  SCC  30,  opined  that the  evidence  of  such  a  witness cannot be effaced or washed off the record altogether, but the same can be  accepted  to  the  extent  it  is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.”

19. The evidence of a witness who  has been declared

hostile  can  be  relied  if  there  are  some  other

material on the basis of which said evidence can be

corroborated. More so, that part of evidence of a

witness as contained in examination-in-chief, which

15

Page 16

remains  unshaken  even  after  cross-examination,  is

fully  reliable  even  though  the  witness  has  been

declared hostile.

20. It  is  relevant  to  note  that  the  trial  began

against six accused persons.  Shivlochan-PW.13 in his

examination-in-chief took the name of  Devraj alone

who was stated to have assaulted Devi  Prasad.

Shivlochan  did  not  mention  in  his

examination-in-chief  about  the  presence  of  other

accused which may be a reason for the prosecution to

get the witness declared as hostile. It is, however,

relevant to note that even in the cross-examination

the  witness  repeated  that  he  heard  Devraj  saying

“Maro Sale Ko” who had assaulted Devi Prasad and Devi

Prasad @ Prachar cried “Bachao Bachao”. The factum of

assault by Devraj was throughout maintained by the

witness. Thus, even though witness was declared as

hostile witness his evidence so far as the role of

Devraj  is  unshaken.  Similarly,  evidence  of  Ajar

Das-PW.16,  where  in  his  examination-in-chief  he

stated that accused Devraj gave three lathi blows to

Devi  Prasad  which  was  seen  by  him.  The  witness

16

Page 17

further stated that Devraj threatened him to run away

otherwise he shall also be assaulted. Even after the

witness was declared hostile he maintained his stand

that he forbidden Devraj from assaulting Devi Prasad.

He  further  stated  that  he  saw  Devraj  and  Dinda

assaulting Devi Prasad in the night and on the next

day the dead body was found below Rakhet Pulia. The

witness  further  stated  that  due  to  land  dispute

Devraj  and  Dinda  had  assaulted  Devi  Prasad.  In

cross-examination he voluntarily stated that he had

seen the accused giving three lathi blows. Further,

he stated that he did not see that whom he has beaten

because  it  was  dark.  The  statement  in

cross-examination in no manner dilute the value of

the evidence. It was Devi Prasad who received injury

whose  dead  body  was  found  next  day  morning.  The

statement that it was Devraj who gave three lathi

blows  obviously  referred  to  lathi  blow  to  Devi

Prasad-deceased. Thus, we conclude that in spite of

witnesses  PW.13 and  PW.16 having  been declared  as

hostile  witnesses  their  evidence  that  Devraj

assaulted  Devi Prasad  is unshaken  and has  rightly

17

Page 18

been  relied  by  the  courts  below  in  recording

conviction.

21. As noted above Ratan Guruji was pillion rider

along  with  deceased-Devi  Prasad  and  after  they

proceeded  from  the  house  of  Devi  Prasad  on  the

motorcycle after some distance near pakkar tree they

were stopped by five persons. The vehicle was got

stopped by those persons they asked as to who is

sitting behind, upon this Devi Prasad said that Ratan

Guruji  of  Chandra  was  sitting.  Then  Dinda  came

towards them having a torch with him. Ratan Guruji

stated that one person came from behind with geda and

shouted “maro, kya dekh rahe ho” and he assaulted

Devi Prasad with geda. Devi Prasad on being assaulted

ran towards back side and shouted “bachao bachao”.

Thus, statement of Ratan Guruji of assault on Devi

Prasad when read with the evidence of PW.13 and PW.16

clearly  indicates  that  it  was  Devraj  who  had

assaulted  Devi  Prasad  which  caused  death  of  the

deceased.

22. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  further

18

Page 19

contended that injury given by danda cannot be said

to be sufficient for death of a person and there is

no evidence to indicate that the injury caused by

Devraj was sufficient for death. He further submitted

that  Dr.  K.P.  Vishwakarma-PW.20,  in  his  statement

stated that injuries which were found in the person

of Devi Prasad-deceased could have been received in

an accident. We have gone through the statement of

Dr. K.P. Vishwakarma-PW.20 and the postmortem report.

The Doctor-PW.20 in his statement after referring to

the  injuries received  by the  deceased has  clearly

stated that only some of the injuries could have been

caused by accident.

23. Dr. K.P. Vishwakarma in his statement has stated

that the cause of death is head injury caused to the

deceased. Thus, there is Doctor's evidence that all

the injuries which were found on the person of the

deceased  could  not  have  been  caused  due  to  the

accident that is falling below Rakhet Pulia.

24. There being clear evidence of stopping of the

motorcycle near pakkar tree and ensuing quarrel and

19

Page 20

assault on Devraj the theory of accident as sought to

be suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant

is wholly unreliable. The details in the Panchnama of

the dead body and position of the dead body as stated

by Anup Shai Rajwade, Inspector of Police-PW.11, in

his statement completely bely the theory of accident.

In  the  examination-in-chief  he  stated  about  the

injuries,  further stated  that in  between both  the

legs, between the thigh one white bottle of one litre

having  half  bottle  of  liquor  was  kept  and  at  a

distance of 4 ft. the motorcycle was there key of

which was put  on a stone. He further stated that

motorcycle was not damaged since only back light was

damaged which indicates that motorcycle was brought

and thrown in the water. The manner in which liquor

bottle was kept between the thigh of dead body  and

glass of back light of the motorcycle alone being

damaged  does  not  support  the  theory  of  accident.

Thus, there are more than one reasons for rejecting

the  theory  of  accident  and  there  was  evidence  to

prove that the deceased was assaulted and murdered

and thereafter body and the motorcycle was brought

20

Page 21

and put below the Pulia. Both Trial Court and the

High Court have referred to and relied on sufficient

evidence for convicting the accused. We, ourselves

after going through the evidence relied on by the

courts below for convicting the accused, are of the

opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved

beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused who had

caused homicidal death of the deceased.

25. We are also conscious that the jurisdiction which

this Court exercises under Article 136 has its own

self-imposed restrictions. It is sufficient to refer

to  this  Court's  decision  reported  in  Ganga  Kumar

Srivastava v. State of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211, where

this Court after referring to various decisions has

laid down certain principles for exercising the power

of this Court under Article 136. It is useful to

refer to paragraph 10 of the judgment, which is :  

“10. From  the  aforesaid  series  of decisions of this Court on the exercise of  power  of  the  Supreme  Court  under Article 136 of the Constitution following principles emerge:

(i)  The  powers  of  this  Court  under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court

21

Page 22

does  not  interfere  with  the  concurrent findings  of  fact  save  in  exceptional circumstances.

(ii)  It  is  open  to  this  Court  to interfere with the findings of fact given by the High Court, if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly.

(iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a question  of  law  of  general  public importance  arises  or  a decision  shocks the conscience of the Court.

(iv)  When  the  evidence  adduced  by  the prosecution  fell  short  of  the  test  of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it.

(v)  Where  the  appreciation  of  evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record.”

26. To the similar effect, another judgment of this

Court reported in Alamelu v. State, (2011) 2 SCC 385,

where this Court held that even though the powers of

this Court under Article 136 are very wide, but in

criminal  appeals,   this    Court    would   not

interfere  with  the concurrent findings of facts,

save in very exceptional cases. Following was laid

22

Page 23

down in paragraph 19:  

“19. We have considered the submissions made  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the parties.  Before  we  embark  upon  an examination  of  the  evidence,  we  may point out that even though the powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution  are  very  wide,  but  in criminal appeals, this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of  facts,  save  in  very  exceptional cases. In an appeal under Article 136 of  the Constitution,  this Court  does not normally appreciate the evidence by itself  and  go  into  the  question  of credibility  of  witnesses.  The assessment of the evidence by the High Court is accepted as final except where the  conclusions recorded  by the  High Court  are  manifestly  perverse  and unsupportable  by  the  evidence  on record. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles,  we  have  examined  the findings recorded by the courts below.”

27. On the principles as laid down by this Court for

exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136, we are

satisfied that the findings recorded by the courts

below from the evidence on record fully justify the

conviction of accused. The findings recorded by the

courts below can neither  be  said  to  be  perverse

nor contain any such illegality which may render the

23

Page 24

findings not reliable.

28. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal. The

appeal is dismissed.

......................J.     ( S.A. BOBDE )

......................J.                                     ( ASHOK BHUSHAN ) NEW DELHI, JULY 25, 2016.

24