Pritam Singh v. The State
"Article 136 confers a discretionary power to be exercised sparingly: special leave is granted only where exceptional and special circumstances exist and substantial and grave injustice has been done, and once leave is granted the appellant may urge only points fit to be urged at the leave stage."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Whether, in an appeal by special leave against a conviction for murder and a sentence of death, the Supreme Court will reappraise the evidence on which the courts below concurrently found the accused guilty?
- (ii)
What standard governs the grant of special leave under Article 136, and may an appellant, once leave is granted, raise points that would not have justified leave in the first place?
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Constitution of India, Article 136 (special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order of any court or tribunal in India).
- (ii)
Constitution of India, Articles 132 to 134 (the Supreme Court's regular appellate jurisdiction in constitutional, civil and criminal matters), against which Article 136 operates as a residuary, discretionary power.
- (iii)
The practice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in criminal appeals by special leave, which the Court drew upon in framing its own approach.
Application to Facts & Circumstances
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, of murder by shooting, on the evidence of eye-witnesses, and sentenced to death. The High Court of East Punjab confirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellant obtained special leave and, at the hearing, sought to reopen the evidence.
The Court observed that Article 136 is worded in the widest terms and confers a discretionary power, not a right of appeal. Because the power is so wide, it is to be exercised sparingly. In the Court's words: "Generally speaking, this Court will not grant special leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against."
The Court held that the same standard applies at both stages. Once leave is granted, the whole case is not thrown open: the appellant may urge only those points that would have been fit to urge when leave was sought.
Applying that standard, the Court found no exceptional circumstance. The findings of fact were concurrent and rested on evidence, and no grave injustice was shown.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
- (ii)
Special leave under Article 136 is granted only where exceptional and special circumstances exist and substantial and grave injustice has been done; the Court does not ordinarily reappraise evidence on which concurrent findings of fact rest.
- (iii)
Once leave is granted, the appellant is confined to points fit to be urged at the leave stage. The passage on the threshold for leave remains the most frequently cited statement of the Article 136 standard.