NARENDER NATH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India has been filed by Shri Narender Nath against the order of this Court affirming on appeal the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamsala, convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) An appeal can only be taken to the Supreme Court if it is certified by the High Court to be a fit one for appeal. This, therefore, would show that the Court has to exercise this power with great circumspection and only in a case which in its opinion is really fit for appeal. It is also apparent that under Clause (c) of Article 134(1) of the Constitution the Supreme Court is not made an ordinary court of criminal appeal and the High Court is not by grant of certificate to attempt to create a jurisdiction which is not intended to be conferred on the Supreme Court as has been laid down in C.S.D. Swami v/s. The State : A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 7. It has also been observed by the Supreme Court in a number of cases that the certificate should not be granted to afford another hearing of facts unless there is an error of a fundamental character. The High Court before it certifies the case must satisfy itself that the case involves some substantial question of law or principle. Thus in an appeal affirming the judgment of the Court below the Applicant has to show some special or exceptional circumstances which exist in order to certify the case as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court, or that there is a question of outstanding difficulty or importance arising in the case which the High Court considers should be resolved by the Supreme Court. Applying this test we have to advert to the arguments canvassed by the learned Counsel for the Applicant.

(3.) The first argument addressed is that the post -mortem report was highly contradictory to the statement of the lady doctor inasmuch as in those circumstances the deceased could not have survived for more than a few minutes and, therefore, the making of the dying declaration, contained in Exhibit PE, was highly improbable; that this dying declaration according to him, had been recorded by the investigating officer whose statement with regard to the recoveries etc. had not been believed. Moreover, it has been observed by the Court that he has made certain interpolations in the statement of Smt. Rameshwari Devi and, therefore, in these circumstances this dying declaration was a very weak piece of evidence and this weak piece of evidence could not be supported by another weak piece of evidence found in the statement of Smt. Rameshwari Devi whose statement was also found by the Court to be contradictory and a part of her statement was disbelieved. Therefore, he says that in these circumstances a question of great public importance was involved as to whether some unreliable witness can support or corroborate the witness of the similar nature when there is no independent corroboration and that this Court had come to a conclusion that in the absence of the independent corroboration a doubtful witness can corroborate a witness of the same character, and which is not a sound proposition of law.