I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before this Honourable court that the present SLP filed by State is
maintainable in the SC [hereinafter as SC] under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Article 136 of the Constitution elucidates that Special leave to appeal by the SC1 –

This SLP is maintainable as, firstly the Appellant has locus standi to approach the Honourable
SC [A], secondly the HC has not considered the entire gamut of evidence properly [B], thirdly
the grave injustice has been done[C].

A. THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE HONOURABLE SC

It is humbly submitted before this Honourable SC that the appellant has locus standi to
approach the Honourable SC in the present case. Article 136 of the Constitution is couched in
the widest phraseology2. This Court's jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion. It is
pertinent to note that the scope of Article 134 providing appeals to the SC in criminal matters
is limited whereas Article 136 is very broad-based & confers discretion on the court to hear
“in any cause or matter”. Therefore, criminal appeals may be brought to the SC under article
136 when these are not covered by Article 1343.

In the present case the HC erred in setting aside the order of conviction. The jurisdiction
conferred under article 136 on the SC is corrective one & not a restrictive one. A duty is
enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the judgments, it
is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated & failure by the SC to
interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated4. Article
136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that there is
injustice5. The principle is that this court would never do injustice nor allow injustice being
perpetrated for the sake of upholding technicalities6.

1
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the SC may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from
any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or
tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, & sentence or order passed or made by
any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed forces.

2
Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
3
Sadhu Singh v. Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271
4
Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241 (SC); see also H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India
(4th Ed. Vol. I 2010)
5
C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298, see also H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India
(4th Ed. Vol.II 2010).
6
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214 (SC)
 A Constitution Bench of SC7, while explaining the import of the said expression, observed
that: “The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is
substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it
directly & substantially affects the rights of the parties & if so whether it is either an open
question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by
the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views.”
Again, the SC said in another case8 : “It is not possible to define the limitation on the exercise
of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Article 136. The limitation whatever
they may be, are implicit in nature & character of the power itself. It being an exceptional &
overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly & with caution & only in special
& extraordinary situations. Beyond that, it is not possible to fetter the exercise of this power
by any set formula or rule”.

In Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharatnam9 , the SC considered an important question having a

“It is now the well-established practice of this court to permit the invocation of the power
under article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances, as & when a question of law of
general importance arises. But, within the restriction imposed by itself, this court has
undoubted power to interfere even with findings of fact, making no distinction between
judgments of acquittal or conviction, if the HC, in arriving at those findings, has acted
“perversely or otherwise improperly”10.

In Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat,11the SC has held that under article 136 the
SC has wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and order passed by any court or
tribunal in India.. Even if we assume that the case doesn’t involve ‘substantial’ question of
law, SC in the exercise of its power conferred under article 136 can entertain the present
appeal. Article 136 uses the wording ‘in any cause or matter’12. This gives widest power to
this court to deal with any cause or matter, even if it involves question of fact. This case
establishes the position that the powers of the SC in appeal under article 136 are not
restricted by the appellate provisions contained in the Cr.PC or any other statute. Hence, in
the present case appellant has locus standi to approach the Honourable SC. The SC under
article 136 of the Constitution following principles emerge13:

7
Chunilal Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314
8
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, Bengal 1955 SCR (1) 941
9
AIR 1979 SC 1284
10
Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharatnam AIR 1979 SC 1284
11
(1991) 4 SCC 406
12
Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169
13
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211
 i. The powers of this Court under article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in
criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save
in exceptional circumstances.
ii. It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact given by the HC, if the
HC has acted perversely or otherwise improperly.
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 the conscience of the Court.
iv. When the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell short of the test of reliability &
acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it.
v. Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of
procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record &
misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the HC are manifestly
perverse & unsupportable from the evidence on record.

In this very case, the evidence with respect to poison administration cannot be relied upon.
The entire HC judgment did not consider the evidence provided by the diary. Thus, there has
been a gross mistake on the part of the HC with respect to consideration of evidences.

B. THE HC HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF EVIDENCE

It is most humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the appreciation of evidence
was not proper.

Firstly, The very idea as to the attack on Kavish in a fit of anger by the Accused 1 was in fact a
plight planned by the prior meeting of minds, to give result to circumstances to view it under a
light of sudden and grave provocation, which in actuality was well devised for the purpose of
calling Kavish home, luring to pay off his debt expecting nothing but an ‘obvious’ reaction from
Shruti, for events to take devised turn so as to project such attack under the light of ‘fit of anger’
as a resultant of ‘grave and sudden provocation’. In furtherance of their devised plan, an
intention was framed, common to Accused 1-3, instance of attack on Kavish stated as to how the
lathi (as a weapon), was used to hit the head and chest of Mr. Kavish, whch happens to be the
most vital organs of a person. During the period of such attack, as the reflexive pursuit of the
plan, there was ‘KILL HIM’( in verbatim) from Mr. Ramesh (admissible and relevant by virtue
of formation of res gestae under section 6, Indian Evidence Act) as Rajnish, held him from
escaping his intended death. This is, hence, an assertion that if Shruti would not have been an
intervening factor after being locked behind the door, their attempt of murdering Kavish have
been commission with complete success. Thus, to negate the factor of ratio decendi of High
Court regarding the death of Shruti to be a consequence of ‘sudden and grave provocation’ for
the state of ‘fit of anger’ reached by the accused as a resultant of the hugging of the lovers is
utterly misinterpreted.

C. THAT THE GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE

It is most humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that grave injustice has been done in
the present case. In this case all the facts are clearly establishing that the HC did not use its
faculty. There are no two views present in the present case to favor one.