- The Supreme Court of India clarified the parameters of criminal appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution in a decision dismissing a criminal appeal.
- According to the court, the power granted by Article 136 can only be used when it is determined that doing so is necessary to prevent a grave or significant injustice. The bench, which was made up of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari, made the following comments in reference to past judgements:
- Extraordinary Jurisdiction to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice: When this Court hears an appeal by special leave, it is exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. This jurisdiction, by its very nature, can only be used when this Court is convinced that intervening is necessary to stop a serious or grave miscarriage of justice.
- Re-appreciation of evidence only in rare and exceptional cases: It is not the custom of this Court to do so in order to determine whether the findings of fact reached concurrently by the Trial Court and the High Court are accurate or not.
- Does not function as a regular Court of Appeal in every criminal case: In every criminal case, this Court does not operate as a regular Court of Appeal. This Court only has special jurisdiction, with the High Court serving as the final court of appeal in most cases.
- Therefore, unless there are unusual circumstances involving apparent illegality or a grave and terrible miscarriage of justice, this Court would not reexamine the evidence to determine the accuracy of findings.
- Scope interference with concurrent findings: Unless it is proved that the finding is perverse—that is, that no reasonable person could have reached it even if the evidence were taken at face value—or that the conclusion is based on no evidence, this Court will not overturn the concurrent findings of fact.
- Principles governing the interference in a criminal appeal by way of special leave: even if it had a different opinion about the evidence, this Court would not interfere with the concurrent factual conclusion reached based only on the evaluation of the facts.
- That the Court will not typically engage in a reappraisal or review of the evidence unless the High Court's assessment is tainted by an error of law or procedure, is based on an error of record, was read incorrectly, or is inconsistent with the evidence, such as when the ocular evidence is wholly at odds with the medical evidence, etc.
- That the Court wouldn't consider the evidence's trustworthiness with the intention of overturning the High Court's judgement in favour of its own.
- The accused in this case was found guilty of murder by the trial court, and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected his appeal.
- The conflicting witness testimony was the only issue brought forward in the appeal.
- The appeal was ultimately rejected by the bench, which upheld the conviction.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
