RANJEET SINGH @ DARAversusSTATE OF MADHYA.PRADESH

                         [2010] 11 S.C.R. 986


A                    RANJEET SINGH @ DARA
                                   v.
                   STATE OF MADHYA.PRADESH
                  (Criminal Appeal No.683 of 2009)
                       SEPTEMBER 20, 2010
B
       [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
                      NIJJAR, JJ.)

          Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Murder - Accused found in
C    a room where her step mother was lying dead with incised
     wounds - His clothes were blood stained and he was holding
     blood stained sword in his hand - Courts below arrived at a
     concurrent finding that the circumstances pointed guilt towards
     the appellant - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held:
D    There was oral, medical and documentary evidence which
     undoubtedly connected the accused with the murder - The
     documents on the basis of which defence was raised that the
     real culprit was shielded and appellant was falsely implicated
     were rightly not relied upon by the courts below as the authors
E    of the documents were not examined - No exceptional
    circumstances were pointed out to enable the Supreme Court
     to interfere with the concurrent findings in exercise of
    jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution - Constitution
    of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Evidence - Circumstantial
F    evidence.

       Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 - Scope of
  interference under - Held: The powers of Supreme Court
  under Article 136 are very wide - However, the interference
  with concurrent findings of facts would only be in very
G exceptional circumstances - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302.
        The prosecution case was that the deceased was the
    step mother of the appellant. She used to reside with her
    son, PW-11 on the first floor of the house belonging to
H                                 986
 RANJEET SINGH@ DARA v. STATE OF MADHYA               987
               PRADESH
her husband. One of the brother of the appellant was PW-     A
12 who lived with his family on the ground floor of the
same house. The appellant resided in Bhopal and was a
regular visitor to the house of PW-12. On the fateful day,
the appellant came from Bhopal to Indore in his car and
parked his car outside the house of PW-12 at around          B
11.30 a.m. He met the wife of PW-12 who asked the
appellant for meal to which he replied that he would have
meal with PW-12. She then went inside her room. After
about 10-12 minutes, her maid PW-9 came and told that
she heard screams coming from the room of the                c
deceased. At about 2.30 p.m., the son of the deceased
came to the house to take some money from his mother.
He found that the room was locked from inside. He heard
the appellant talking on phone and asked him to open the
door. The appellant refused to open the door. In the         D
meanwhile, PW-12 came and he also asked the appellant
to open the door. The appellant shouted that he would
open the door only on the arrival of the police. When the
police arrived, the_appellant opened the door and stated
that he killed the deceased. He was holding blood stained
                                                             E
sword in his hand and his clothes were blood stained.

    The trial Court convicted the appellant under section
302 IPC. The High Court confirmed the conviction.

    In the instant appeal, it was contended for the          F
appellant that he was falsely implicated and that the real
culprit was being shielded.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, there was    G
no eye-witness account of the murder. The prosecution
relied heavily on the circumstantial evidence. Both the
courts below had examined the entire evidence with
great care and caution and had reached the conclusion
                                                             H
    988      SUPREME COURT REPORTS          (2010] 11 S.C.R.


A that the murder was committed by none other than the
  appellant. The approach of the courts below was in
  consonance with the well established principles, since
  the prosecution case was based only or primarily on
  circumstantial evidence. [Para 11] [995-C-D]
B
       Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. 1952 SCR
  1091 ·- relied on.

       Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka (2008) 16 SCC 737;
  Ghurey /al v. State of UP (2008) 10 SCC 450; Abdulwahab
C Abdulmajid Baloch v. State of Gujrat (2009) 11 SCC 625;
  Budh Singh v. State of UP (2006) 9 SCC 731; Rajeevan v.
  State of Kera/a (2003) 3 SCC 355; Oharamver & ors. v. State
  of U.P (2010) 4 SCC 469; Rabindra Mahto v. State of
  Jharkhand (2006) 10 SCC 432; Aqeel Ahmed v. State of UP
D (2008) 16 SCC 372 - referred to.

         2. The evidence pointing out a link of the husband
    of the deceased with a crime was the mention of his
    name by PW 10 in the report Ex.P14. This report itself
E   indicated that it was based on the information received.
    However, the author had failed to specify the source of
    information, although at one stage, it was stated by him
    that he had talked to the Investigating Officer (PW13).
    There was, however, no confirmation of this fact by the
F   Investigating Officer. Thus, the High Court declined to
    give any credence to the suggestion that name of the
    husband of the deceased was correctly recorded in the
    report Ex.P14. Both the courts below concluded that the
    name of the husband of the deceased may have been the
    result of confusion in the mind of PW10. The conclusion
G   reached by both the courts below on due appreciation
    of the evidence of these two witnesses cannot be said
    to be either unjustified or perverse. There was oral,
    medical and documentary evidence, which would
    undoubtedly connect the appellant with the murder. Apart
H   from the oral evidence, the post-mortem report Ex.P-11
 RANJEET SINGH @ DARA v. STATE OF MADHYA                 989
                PRADESH

made it abundantly clear that except for injuries No. 2, 3      A
and 4, all the injuries found on the deceased were incised
wounds. All the said injuries could be caused with a
sharp edged weapon such as a sword. Furthermore, the
appellant failed to give any explanation for his presence
in the room of the deceased. There was no explanation           B
about the presence of blood stained sword in his hand.
All the circumstances taken together clearly pointed
towards the guilt of the appellant. [Paras 12-1 S] [996-B-
0]

     3. The appellant had tried to create a defence by          C
stating that he was already in the custody of the police
at the time when the murder was committed. According
to him, he was beaten up by the police which
necessitated medical examination. He relied on Ex.OS
which indicated that the appellant was examined on the          D
day of incident in the morning at 11.30 a.m. The sfory
about the medical examination at 11.30 a.m. was
disbelieved by the trial court on the ground that since the
appellant had only arrived from Bhopal, a little before the
murder, there was little likelihood of his being in the         E
custody of police at 11.30 a.m. In any event, the entry with
regard to the time of inspection being 11 :30 am in the
medical report (Injury Report) seemed to be in a different
ink from the rest of the report. The High Court further
noticed that Ex.OS could not be relied upon, as the author      F
of the said report was never examined. The said
conclusions were reached by both the courts below on
the basis of due appreciation of the relevant material on
record. No exceptional circumstances were pointed out
to enable this Court to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction   G
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Undoubtedly, the powers of this Court under Article 136
are very wide; the interference with concurrent findings
of facts would only be in very exceptional circumstances.
[Paras 16, 17] [999-F-H; 1000-A-E]                              H
    990        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2010] 11 S.C.R.


A       Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC
    211 - held inapplicable.

                          Case Law Reference:
          (2008) 16 sec 737        referred to          Para 8
B
          (2008) 1o sec 450        referred to          Para 8
          (2009) 11 sec 625        referred to          Para 8
          (2006) 9 sec 731         referred to          Para 8
c          (2003) 3 sec 355        referred to          Para 8
          (201 O) 4 sec 469        referred to          Para 9
          (2006) 1o sec 432        referred to          Para 9

D         (2008) 16 sec 312        referred to          Para 9
          1952 SCR 1091            relied on            Para 11
          (2005) 6 sec 211         held inapplicable Para 17
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
E No. 683 of 2000.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 13.03.2006 of the
    High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal
    Appeal No. 469 of 2000.
F
        K.T.S. Tusli, Ram Nivas, Raj Kamal, A.P. Dhamija,
    Sanjeev Malhotra for the Appellant.

        C.D. Singh, Sunny Choudhary, Shashank Parihar, Sakshi
    Kakkar, for the Respondent.
G
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. This appeal is against
  the final Judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya
H Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Criminal Appeal No: 469/2000
 RANJEET SINGH @ DARA v. STATE OF MADHYA                       991
    PRADESH [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

wherein the order of conviction of the appellant for the offences      A
punishable under Section 302 IPC, passed by the Special
Judge (S.C & S.T Prevention of Atrocities) and Additional
Sessions Judge, Indore has been confirmed.

      2. The deceased Jayawati was the second wife of Machi            8
Singh. The prosecution version of the tragic episode, leading
to the death (murder) of Jayawati (hereinafter referred to as
the deceased) has been primarily narrated by Hukum Singh
(PW 11). He is the son of Machi Singh and the deceased. The
first wife of Machi Singh, Kaushalya Devi had given birth to 13        C
children. She had produced 8 sons, namely, Surendra Singh,
Narendra Singh, Balwant Singh, Nanak Singh, Ranjit Singh @
Dara (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), Jasbir Singh,
Santosh Singh, Trilochan Singh (PW 12), and five daughters.

      3. The deceased Jayawati used to reside with her son             D
Hukam Singh (PW 11) at A.H. Sukalya Road on the first floor.
Trilochan Singh@ Lucky (PW 12) used to reside on the ground
floor with his wife Surendra Kaur@ Poli (PW 1). The appellant
was a regular visitor at the house situated at Sukalya. On the
morning of 619197, the appellant had gone to Indore from               E
Bhopal by car and reached the house at around 11 :30 am. He
came in to visit, after parking the car outside. On the same
day Jayawati was found dead in the same house around 2 to
3 pm.
                                                                       F
      4. It is further the case of the prosecution that one Rar.jeet
Singh had telephonically informed that someone had committed
a murder at house NO: A.H. 37 Sukalya, and that the accused
had been caught and detained. This information was recorded
by Brijesh Mishra (PW13),SHO, in the General Diary at Serial
No: 357 (Ex P/19 - C at 14:50 hours). The SHO then                     G
proceeded along with Constable Balkishan (PW8) to the house
in question. On reaching the house when he went to the first
floor, he found that the door was closed from inside. He asked
the person inside to open the door. When the door was opened
by the appellant from inside, he had a blood stained sword in          H
    992       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A his hand. His hands were soiled in blood. There were also
  stains of blood on the door. Jayawati was lying on the double
  bed and her body was smudged with blood. Trilochan Singh
  @Lucky (PW 12) then asked the accused "Dara, what have
  you done?" The appellant replied that "I have done the right
B thing - you shut up and go away from here." SHO, Brijesh
  Mishra (PW 13) persuaded the accused to hand over his sword
  and it was laid down on the floor by him. Constable Balkishan
  (PW 8) was deputed to stand guard.

         5. Soon the senior officials of the Police, on being
C   apprised of the incident, also arrived at the scene of the murder.
    Hukum Singh (PW 11) gave report Ex P/16 in writing and on
    the basis thereof Dehati Nalish P/17 was recorded. Summons
    were issued for holding inquest and inquest report Ex. P/8
    was prepared. PW8 was entrusted with the duty of taking the
D   dead body of Jayawati for post mortem examination. At the
    instance of Trilochan Singh (PW 12) spot map Ex P/20 was
    prepared. In the presence of Rajesh Dubey (PW 3) and
    Nanuram (PW 4), the sword was seized from the floor, one
    gold "bala" lying near the leg of the deceased., the cotton in
E   which the blood was collected, simple cotton, the sheath of the
    sword lying behind the door, the blood stained bed sheets
    and pillow cover were seized vide Ex. P/13. Accused was
    arrested under Memo Ex P/6. His clothes namely shirt, jeans,
    shoes and the blood removed from his hands were seized
F   vide Ex P/4. Accused was taken to Police Station Heeranagar
    and case No: 165/97 under Section 302 IPC was registered
    vide Ex P/21. Accused was also sent for medical examination
    by issuing medical form Ex P/22.
G        6. By order dated 7/3/2000, the Trial Court convicted the
    appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section
    302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and
    imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of which he had to
    further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
    Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the appellant herein filed
H
 RANJEET SINGH @ DARA v. STATE OF MADHYA                    993
    PRADESH [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

Criminal Appeal No: 469 of 2000 before the High Court of           A
Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. The High Court vide order
dated 13/3/2006 confirmed the conviction of the accused under
Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant
herein has filed the present appeal before this Court.
                                                                   B
    7. We have heard Mr. K.T.S Tulsi, learned Senior
Advocate for the appellant and Mr. C.D. Singh on behalf of the
respondent-State.

      8. After taking us through the relevant materials relied on
 by the prosecution, Mr K.T.S Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate C
submitted that initially Machi Singh, father of the appellant,
 had been made the accused. According to Mr.Tulsi, this is a
case of false implication. The real culprit, possibly Machi Singh
is sought to be shielded. He then set out the sequence of
events which according to him would make it atleast very D
doubtful, if not impossible, for the murder to have been
committed by the appellant. He submits that in this case, the
FIR had been recorded at 7.00 p.m. However, the first
document mentioning the details of the incident is the inspection
report of Dr. Sudhir Sharma (PW10). Both the Courts below E
 have illegally discarded the evidence of this witness. Mr.Tulsi
 emphasized that PW13 Brijesh Mishra, SHO, who was the
 Investigating Officer did not conduct the spot inspection
 according to the directions issued by PW10. Investigation in
this case being incomplete, no reliance could have been placed F
on the evidence of PW13. Learned senior counsel further
emphasized that at the time of the murder, the appellant was
already in the custody of the police. He had been sent for
medical examination to Dr.RC.Choudhary. On medical
examination, this witness had recorded the time of examination G
at 11.45 hrs. The appellant had suffered five injuries on his
hands. According to Mr.Tulsi, the nature of the injuries would
make it impossible for the appellant to wield a sword, to inflict
the kind of injuries that were found on the deceased. According
to Mr.Tulsi, the registration of the FIR was deliberately delayed . H
    994       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A in order to shield the real culprit. Learned senior counsel
   submitted that obviously the delay had occurred whilst the
   concerned individuals were trying to concoct a plausible version
   to protect the real assailant. Apart from the delayed registration
   of the FIR, there is no explanation as to why a copy of the FIR
B was not sent to the Magistrate for the next five days. This
   could be sufficient to discredit the version of the prosecution.
   According to Mr.Tulsi, the inherent weaknesses in the
   prosecution case have been totally ignored by both the courts
   below. The benefit of these shortcomings ought to have been
c given to the appellant. In support of his submissions, learned
   counsel relied on the judgments in the cases of Rangaiah Vs.
   State of Karnataka [(2008) 16 SCC 737], Ghurey la/ Vs. State
   of UP [(2008) 10 SCC 450], and Abdulwahab Abdulmajid
   Baloch Vs. State of Gujrat [(2009) 11 SCC 625]. With regard
0 to the effect of delayed receipt of the copy of the FIR by the
   Magistrate, learned counsel relied on Budh Singh Vs. State
   of UP [(2006) 9 SCC 731] and Rajeevan Vs. State of Kera/a
  {(2003) 3 sec 355].

        9. Learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that
E both the courts below have held that the delay in sending the
  copy of the FIR has not caused any prejudice to the appellant.
  Both the courts below have found that sufficient explanation
  has been given about the delay by PW 13. In any event, the
  delay in sending the copy of the FIR would not in itself be
F sufficient to discard the entire prosecution evidence. Learned
  counsel also relied on Dharamver & ors. Vs. State of UP
  [(2010) 4 SCC 469], Rabindra Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand
  [(2006) 10 SCC 432] and Aqee/ Ahmed Vs. State of UP
  [(2008) 16 sec 372]. Learned counsel further submitted that
G the appellant in this case had a clear motive to commit the
  crime. He was apprehensive that the father may favour the
  illegitimate son PW11 over the legitimate sons. The plea with
  regard to the real murderer being shielded is just to protect
  the appellant, who was caught red handed. His hands as well
H as the sword were covered in blood. He had suffered injuries
 RANJEET SINGH @ DARA v. STATE OF MADHYA                   995
    PRADESH [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
by sword whilst committing the murder. According to the learned    A
counsel, reliance on Ex.D5 is falsified by Ex.P22. Therefore,
Ex.D5 has been rightly discarded by the trial court as well as
the High Court. Ex.P22 clearly shows that the appellant has
been sent for medical examination after arrest because he
had suffered injuries with sword. The aforesaid fact is clearly    B
adverted to by PW 13 in his deposition.

     10. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties.

     11. Undoubtedly, in this case there is no eye-witness         C
account of the murder. The prosecution has relied heavily on
the circumstantial evidence. Both the courts below have
examined the entire evidence with great care and caution and
have reached the conclusion that the murder has been
committed by none other than the appellant herein. The             D
approach of the courts below is in consonance with the well
established principles, in matters where the prosecution case
is based only or primarily on circumstantial evidence. Laying
down the principles in such cases, this court in the case of
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P.,[1952 SCR             E
 1091] observed as follows:-

    "It is well to remember th<.. in cases where the evidence
    is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
    the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first
    instance be fully established, and all the facts so            F
    established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
    of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
    be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should
    be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
    proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a         G
    chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
    reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
    innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
    that within all human probability the act must have been
    done by the accused."                                          H
    996       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A       12. Mr.Tulsi has sought to project that the real culprit in
  this case is being shielded. He has suggested that possibly it
  is Machi Singh who had committed the murder. The only
  evidence linking Machi Singh with a crime is the mention of
  his name by Dr.Sudhir Sharma (PW 10) in the report Ex.P14.
B This report itself indicates that it is based on the information
  received. However, the author has failed to specify the source
  of information, although at one stage, it was stated by PW-10
  that he had talked to the Investigating Officer (PW13). There
  is, however, no confirmation of this fact by the Investigating
c Officer. Thus, the High Court declined to give any credence to
  the suggestion that name of Machi Singh had been correctly
  recorded in the report Ex.P14. Both the courts below have
  concluded that the name of Machi Singh may have been the
  result of confusion in the mind of Dr.Sudhir Sharma (PW10).
  The conclusion reached by both the courts below on due
0
  appreciation of the evidence of these two witnesses cannot
  be said to be either unjustified or perverse.

         13. On the other hand, there is oral, medical and
    documentary evidence, which would undoubtedly connect the
E   appellant with the murder. The appellant was the step son of
    the deceased. She was living on the first floor of the house
    owned by Machi Singh. The ground floor was occupied by
    Tarlochan Singh and his wife, Surinder Kaur, who appeared
    as PW1. She has testified that appellant lives in Bhopal. He
F   had come to Indore in the morning of 6/9/1997. His car was
    parked outside the house. She had met the appellant and
    asked if he wanted to have a meal. He had, however, stated
    that he will have the meal along with her husband Tarlochan
    Singh, PW12. Thereafter, she went into her room. After about
G   10-15 minutes, Kiran (PW 9), her maid came and told her that
    she had heard screams coming from the room of Jaya aunty.
    Kiran also stated that appellant lives in Bhopal, he comes to
    Indore quite often. She also corroborated the fact that he was
    in the house at the time of the murder. PW-11 stated that on
H   the day of the murder, he wanted to go and see a movie. He
  RANJEET SINGH @ DARA v. STATE OF MADHYA                    997
     P~ADESH [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

left the house around 1.30 p.m to tell his friend to get ready.     A
He then came back to the house at about 2.30/2.45 p.m.to
take some money for the movie, from his mother. Therefore,
he went upstairs to her room. He heard the voice of the
appellant from inside the room. It appeared to him, that he
was talking to some one on the telephone. The room was              B
locked from inside. He knocked at the door and asked the
appellant to open the door. so that he could talk to his mother.
The appellant told him, "you go for now - I want to talk to
Jaya". He was told by the appellant that the deceased was in
the bathroom. He went out to the gallery and saw that there         c
was no body in the bathroom. He again came and asked the
appellant to open the door of the room. In the meanwhile,
Tarlochan Singh, PW 12 also reached there. He also tried to
get the door opened. He even called out to the appellant. He
was also told to go away by the appellant. Ultimately, the          D
appellant shouted that he will open the door only when the
police arrives. In the meanwhile, the police arrived. On being
satisfied with the identity of PW 13, the appellant opened the
door. He stated that he had killed the deceased. He was holding
a blood stained sword in his hand at the time. On directions
                                                                    E
from PW13, he had put the sword on the floor. Hukum Singh
PW-11 then went inside the room and saw his mother lying on
the bed covered in blood. The Dehati Nalish was recorded on
the basis of the sequence of events narrated by him. Thereafter,
 FIR (P 21) was recorded. This witness was cross-examined
at length. Nothing useful could be elicited from him. The version   F
given by PW 11 is consistent with the testimony of the
Investigating Officer PW.13.

     14. Apart from the oral evidence, the post-mortem report
Ex. P-11 makes it abundantly clear that except for injuries No.     G
2, 3 and 4, all the injuries found on the deceased were incised
wounds. The post mortem report of Dr.P.C.Jain (PW5)
indicates the following injuries on the body of the deceased:-

    1. Incised wound 3 x 2 x 0.5 c. transverse oblique in
                                                                    H
    998        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A         direction (tr.06) on upper mid point of abdomen (9 cm
          above umbilicus).

          2. Contused abrasion 1.5 x 0.4 cm on left hypocondrium
          region.
8         3. Contused abrasion 3 x 1 cm on public region.
                        '·
          4. Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm on public region (3 cm below injury
          no.3).

          5. Incised wound - Stab wound internally size 3.4 cm x 2
c         cm on the upper point of Abdomen. Vert. Oblique direction
          (Vt 06) present 17 cm below the ant. End of axillary fold
          internally it runs obliquely upwards passes through whole
          wideness of abdominal wall (lat side), both walls of
          stomach (through and through) and makes cut mark on Lt.
D         Lobe of liver (size of wound is 1.3 x 0.4 x 3cm deep). The
          whole abdominal cavity full of blood and very little food
          particles (semi digested) come out from stomach and
          present near wounds on stomach.

E         6. Incised wound 3 x 2 x 1 cm on lateral part of Lt. Inguinal
          region (vtl.06).

          7. Incised wound - chopped size 4 x 2 x 0.3 cm. (ms deep)
          on Lt. Middle finger (dorsum aspect and near base Vgt.
          06).
F
          8. Incised wound - 4 x 2 x 0.3 cm. (ms deep) on Lt. Pain
          near base of thumb and index finger (Vt.06).       ··

          9. Incised wound - 2 x 0.5 x 0.2 cm (ms deep) on Lt. Index
G         finger (Tr.06) mid part and palmer aspect.

          10. Incised wound 2.5 x 1 x 0.3 cm on Lt. Forearm. Present
          8 cm above the wrist joint on antro medial.

          11. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm (upto $kUll deep)
H
 RANJEET SINGH @ DARA v. STATE OF MADHYA                       999
    PRADESH [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

    on Lt. Temporal area of head in sagital (2 cm above the            A
    Ltd. Ear pinna and runs posterior)

     12. Incised wound 3 x 2 x 0.5 cm. on Lt. Buttock (upper
     and outer quadrant & vt. 06).

     13. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.4 x skin deep present buttock           B
     (upper and outer quadrant).

     14. Incised wound 1 x 0.2 x skin deep (4 cm above).

     15. Incised wound 7 x 3 x 1 cm on Rt. Forearm present at          C
     5 cm above the wrist joint on post media.

     16. 4 Incised wound 4 x 2 cm chopped cut present Rt. Base
     of thumb and other three 1 cm x 4 cm type x skin deep on
     Rt. Hand of palmer aspect in one plane.
                                                                       D
     17. Incised wound 5 x 2 x 0.3 cm (ms. Deep present from
     Rt. Angle of mouth and runs laterally).

     15. All the aforesaid injuries could be caused with a sharp
edged weapon such as a sword. Furthermore, the appellant
has failed to give any explanation for his presence in the room        E
of the deceased. There is no explanation about the presence
of blood stained sword in his hand. All the circumstances taken
together clearly point towards the guilt of the appellant.

       16. The appellant had tried to create a defence by stating      F
that he was already in the custody of the police at the time
when the murder was committed. According.to him, he had
been beaten up by the police which necessitated medical
examination. This, according to the appellant, was conducted
by Dr.R.C.Chaudhury. He relied on Ex.D5 which had indicated            G
that the appellant had been examined on 6.9.1997 in the
morning at 11.30 a.m. The story about the medical examination
at 11.30 a.m. has been disbelieved by the trial court on the
ground that since appellant had only arrived from Bhopal, a
little before the murder, there is little likelihood of his being in   H
    1000      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A the custody of police at 11.30 a.m. In any event, the entry with
  regard to the time of inspection being 11 :30 am in the medical
  report (Injury Report) seems to be in different ink from the rest
  of the report. The High Court further noticed that Ex.05 could
  not be relied upon as the author of the said report, Dr.
B RC.Choudhary was never examined. The report was produced
  in Court by DW1 who merely stated that the report had been
  written by Dr.Chaudhary. He had also stated that the report
  bears the signatures of Dr.Chaudhary. In our opinion, even
  this conclusion reached by courts below cannot be said to be
C either erroneous or perverse.

       17. The aforesaid conclusions have been reached by both
  the courts below on the basis of due appreciation of the relevant
  material on record. No exceptional circumstances have been
  pointed out to enable this Court to interfere in exercise of
D jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We
  may also notice that most of the submissions made by Mr.Tulsi
  were in the realm of appreciation of evidence. Undoubtedly,
  the powers of this Court under Article 136 are very wide; the
  interference with concurrent findings of facts would only be in
E very exceptional circumstances. The circumstances in which
  this Court may interfere with the concurrent findings have been
  broadly dealt with by this Court in the case of Ganga Kumar
  Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar,[(2005) 6 SCC 211] wherein it
  was observed as follows:
F
       "10. From the aforesaid series of decisions of this Court
       on the exercise of power of the Supreme Court under
       Article 136 of the Constitution following principles emerge:

        (1) The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the.
G       Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court
        does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save.
        in exceptional circumstances.

        (it) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of
H       fact given by the High Court, if the High Court has acted
 RANJEET SINGH @ DARA v. STATE OF MADHYA 1001
    PRADESH [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

      perversely or otherwise improperly.                                A

      (iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power under Article
      136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when
      a question of law of general public importance arises or a
      decision shocks th,e conscience of the Court.                      8
      (iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell
      short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such
      it is highly unsafe to act upon it.

      (v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is              C
      vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary
      to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and
      misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of
      the High Court are manifestly perverse and
      unsupportable from the evidence on record."                        D

     18. We are of the considered opinion that the case of the
appellant does not fall within the purview of the aforesaid ratio
of law.

      19. Mr.Tulsi has tried to point out a number of                    E
discrepancies and contradictions between the evidence of PW-
10, PW-11 and PW-13. We are not much impressed by the
aforesaid submissions. The discrepancies have been noticed
by both the courts below. It was held by both the courts below
that the discrepancies are not such as to justify discarding the         F
evidence led by the prosecution.

     20. For the reasons stated above, we find no reason to
interfere with the well reasoned judgments of the trial court
and the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
                                                                         G
D.G                                             Appeal dismissed.