Criminal Appeal No. 2016 of 2013
Mekala Sivaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Date of Order:
15th July 2022
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna Murari
Mekala Sivaiah – Petition
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
The court stated that the authority under Article 136 is only usable where this Court is convinced that intervening is required to stop a grave or significant miscarriage of justice.
- Court of Sessions Judge at Guntur sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for lime along with an Rs.500/- fine under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court dismissed his plea further upholding the trial court’s judgment, thus the current petition.
- The petitioner is said to have murdered the deceased in front of four eyewitnesses with the deceased’s son being the primary witness. He allegedly threw chili powder in the victim’s eyes and stabbed him in the open and then ran away.
- There was a total of 9 witnesses along with 3 police officers who arrived at the scene after the incident had occurred to apprehend the applicant and the post-mortem doctor.
- Arguments Advanced by Petitioner
- In the current petition, it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the alleged murder weapon was not recovered by the police, a piece of evidence that is critical for the conviction. It was also mentioned how there was a considerable delay in the FIR copy reaching the court.
- Doubt was also cast upon the extremely convenient placement of eyewitnesses all over the sight of the offense, with witnesses further losing credibility when none of them were able to describe the murder weapon with accuracy and consistency.
- The learned counsel asked the court how the appellant fled the scene while sporting a leg injury that did not allow him to work for six months and for which he is still receiving treatment.
Arguments Advanced by Respondent
- The learned counsel for the respondent stated that considering the testimonies of the witnesses and the eyewitnesses, the trial court decided the punishment which was later upheld by the high court, and stressed that there is no need for interference under Article 136 of the constitution.
- Whether there are enough grounds for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the matter under Article 136 of the constitution?
- Article 136 is only permitted to be used where this Court determines that intervening is required to stop a substantial or grave miscarriage of justice.
- It has long been established via judicial rulings that Article 136 is written in general terms and that the authority granted under the said Article is not restricted by any technical requirements. This supreme and extraordinary power, however, should only be used to further the cause of justice.
- The court further stated that it is not standard procedure to review the material in order to determine whether or not the factual conclusions reached concurrently by the Trial Court and the High Court are accurate.
- This measure can only be exercised in situations of grave miscarriage of justice whose criteria the current situation does not measure up to.
Thus, it was ruled by the court that there was no grave miscarriage of justice in this present situation and found it prudent not to interfere in the decisions upheld and ruled by the High Court and Trial court respectively.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement