HARSHADSINGH PAHELVANSINGH THAKORE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judicial symmetry, when the subject of dispute in re-appraisal of evidence of dispute in re-appraisal of evidence even on the sophisticated ground of misappreciation, has to submit itself to certain self-restraining rules of processual symmetry. The trial Court directly sees the witnesses testify and tests their veracity in the raw. The appellate Court, enjoying coextensive power of examination, exercises it circumspectly, looks for errors of probative appraisal, oversight or omission in the record and makes a better judgment on the totality of materials in the light of established rules of criminal jurisprudence. As the case ascends, higher forensic review is more rarefied. Such being the restrictive approach, the Supreme Court cannot be persuaded, without stultifying the system of our judicature, to go over the ground of reading the evidence and interpreting it anew so as to uphold that which appeals to it among possible alternative views. If there is perversity, miscarriage of justice, shocking misreading or gross-misapplication of the rules, procedural and substantive, we interfere without hesitation. Of course, other exceptional circumstances also may invoke our review jurisdiction. These prefatory observations have become necessary since, usually, appellants, hopefully slurring over these jurisdictional limitations, argue the whole way before us as if the entire evidence is at large for de novo examination. Such a procedure has been attempted in the present case and, for reasons just mentioned, we are disinclined to rip open the depositions to re-discover whether the evidence is reliable or not.

(2.) A single survivor figures as the appellant before us , from among four persons who were tried by the Sessions Court. Baroda, for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Accused 3 and 4 secured acquittal before the Sessions Court and accused 2 won his appeal before the High Court. concurrent findings of guilt notwithstanding, the first accused has secured special leave by jail appeal.

(3.) Shri L. C. Goyal, appearing as amicus curiae, has urged before us that the appellant is entitled to acquittal like the rest of the accused. The few facts, to explain why .. we make short shrift of this case, may be narrated. The murderous episode, preceded some days earlier by a minor incident, took place on February 7, 1974 at about 10.30 p. m. The deceased Vasant and his friends were returning from the side of cinema house, Krishna Talkies. Sitting on the footpath and in keeping with the hour and the company, the group took hot drinks, the deceased having consumed considerable potions. The drunk was led by his comrades towards his house when a bunch of persons including the four accused confronted them. A tipsy altercation often sparks the plug of tantrums and violence. Here the prosection version is that accused No. 1 Baba and the deceased Vasant began the brawl with a heated verbal exchange, followed by mutual fisting but climaxed by the 1st accused planting his knife on the left chest of the victim. The others too joined in the attack, accused 2 with knife and accused 3 with fist. The last man only shouted to incite them into giving blows. Hardly had the victim Vasant fallen when the accused assailants took to their heels. The injured was shortly hospitalised but soon succumbed to his wounds. Eye-witnesses testified, medical evidence was adduced and the homicide brought home beyond reasonable doubt.