Concurrent findings and reliable identification evidence govern interference in criminal appeals under special leave review.

In a criminal appeal by special leave under Article 136, the Court ordinarily will not reappraise evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are vitiated by legal or procedural error, misreading of evidence, perversity, or grave injustice. On the evidence, natural eye-witness testimony corroborated by medical and recovery material was held sufficient despite the non-examination of some witnesses, as minor discrepancies did not justify rejection of the prosecution case. Identification evidence against one accused was found unsafe because of defects in the test identification process and inadequate corroboration, leading to benefit of doubt for that accused while the remaining convictions were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a criminal appeal by special leave, the Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact and reappraise evidence only in exceptional cases. (ii) Whether the conviction of the appellants was sustainable on the evidence, including the effect of non-examination of certain witnesses and the identification evidence against Ajit Singh.

Issue (i): Whether, in a criminal appeal by special leave, the Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact and reappraise evidence only in exceptional cases.

Analysis: The governing principle is that the Court does not function as an ordinary court of criminal appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and ordinarily does not reassess evidence or substitute its own view on credibility where the courts below have returned concurrent findings. Interference is justified only where the findings are vitiated by error of law or procedure, misreading of evidence, violation of natural justice, disregard of mandatory procedure, manifest perversity, or other circumstances resulting in substantial and grave injustice.

Conclusion: The power of interference in such matters is limited, and concurrent findings are not to be disturbed absent special circumstances.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction of the appellants was sustainable on the evidence, including the effect of non-examination of certain witnesses and the identification evidence against Ajit Singh.

Analysis: The eye-witnesses were accepted as natural witnesses, and their evidence was corroborated by surrounding circumstances, medical and recoveries-related material. Non-examination of some persons did not warrant rejection of the prosecution case because an explanation was offered and the available evidence was otherwise trustworthy. The Court held that truth and falsehood had to be separated rather than discarding the entire case for minor discrepancies. However, as to Ajit Singh, the identification evidence was not sufficiently safe: one witness had failed to identify him at the test identification parade, the other had not been properly tested there, and the recovery evidence alone was insufficient to connect him beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The convictions and sentences of Dalbir Singh, Puran Singh, and Dalbir Kaur were upheld, but Ajit Singh was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, resulting in acquittal of one appellant while the remaining convictions and sentences were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal appeal by special leave, concurrent findings of fact are ordinarily not interfered with unless they are vitiated by legal or procedural error, perversity, or serious prejudice, and identification evidence must be sufficiently reliable to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

---