M R MINI MINOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Limited leave to appeal granted.

(2.) These two appeals lend themselves to disposal by a common judgment having been filed by two different sets of accused against the same judgment convicting them all for different offences.

(3.) The facts found by the High Court have our broad concurrence although Shri R. K. Jain, Advocate in Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 1979, has, to some extent, made a dent on the veracity of the prosecution version. But we are inclined to reopen the findings of fact concurrently rendered in exercise of our jurisdiction under Art. 136 even assuming there are some errors of fact and of law. Every error does not confer a visa into this Court lest the flood-gates of litigation flow irresistible stream making the Supreme Court a superior High Court of appeal. Doing so would condemn the court to functional futility and defeat the design of the founding fathers that ordinarily it shall operate as the nation's summit court deliberating and pronouncing upon issues of great moment and constitutional portent. For these reasons we have confined leave to appeal to the nature of the offence disclosed on the findings on record and the sentence to be imposed if variance is justified on principle.