What is the scope of the Supreme Court's power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the High Court in a criminal appeal?

The power under Article 136 is very wide, but in criminal appeals this Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances, such as where the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly, where a question of law of general public importance arises, or where the decision shocks the conscience of the Court.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302, s.304 Parts I and II, s.34 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Murder — Sole eyewitness testimony — Interested witness — Delay in FIR — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Sole eyewitness testimony — Quality over quantity — Held: Direct ocular testimony of a single eyewitness, if natural, cogent and trustworthy, can alone sustain a murder conviction without corroboration. The court weighs the quality, not the quantity, of evidence necessary to prove a fact. (¶19, 20) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Related witness — Interested witness distinguished — Held further: A witness's relationship to the deceased, without more, does not make her an interested witness; that status requires proof of direct motive, personal animosity or other reason to falsely implicate the accused. A natural witness who is a close relative remains reliable. (¶23, 24, 25) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302, s.304 Parts I and II — Intention to kill — Held further: Whether an act is murder under Section 302 or culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I or II turns on intention, gathered from the weapon used, the vital part targeted and premeditation. Injuries on the head, neck, chest and other vital parts evidence intent to kill. (¶26, 27, 28) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Delay in FIR — Explained delay not fatal — Held further: A delay in lodging the first information report is not by itself fatal to the prosecution's case once it stands well-explained; here, the daughter's shock upon witnessing her mother's killing explains the delay. Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence for murder affirmed. (¶29, 30, 37)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of BALKU ORAM v. STATE OF ODISHA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India