IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2008
Jugendra Singh .....……..Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. ………Respondent
j u d g m e n t
Dipak Misra, J.
From the days of yore, every civilised society has developed various
kinds of marriages to save the man from the tyranny of sex, for human
nature in certain circumstances has the enormous potentiality of exhibiting
intrigue, intricacy and complexity, in a way, a labyrinth. Instances do
take place where a man becomes a slave to this tyrant and exposes unbridled
appetite and lowers himself to an unimaginable extent for gratification of
his carnal desire. The case at hand graphically exposes the inferior
endowments of nature in the appellant who failed to husband his passion and
made an attempt to commit rape on a nine year old girl and the tears of the
child failed to have any impact on his emotion and even an iota of
compassion did not surface as if it had been atrophied and eventually he
pressed her neck which caused instant death of the nervous young girl.
2. Presently, we shall proceed with the narration. The facts as
unfolded by the prosecution, in brief, are that on 24.06.1994, Vineshwari
along with her brother, Dharam Veer, aged about five years, was having a
bath in the water that had accumulated in front of the house of the
informant, Pitambar, their father, due to a crack in the nearby canal.
Kali Charan and Ganeshi, PW 2, were grazing their cattle in the field
situate at a short distance. The accused-appellant, a resident of the
village, cajoled Vineshwari to accompany him to the nearby field belonging
to one Layak Singh. The younger brother, Dharam Veer, innocently followed
them. At that juncture, the appellant took off her undergarment and with
the intention to have intercourse flung her on the ground. The young girl
cried aloud and her brother, the five year old child, raised an alarm.
Kali Charan and Ganeshi who had seen the accused taking the girl followed
by the brother to the field of Layak Singh rushed to the place and shouted
for Pitambar, PW-1. Hearing the shout, Pitambar with his elder son Harpal
rushed to the spot and witnessed that the accused was pressing the neck of
Vineshwari. By the time they could reach the spot, the accused made an
effort to run away but he was apprehended. However, unfortunately by that
time, the girl had already breathed her last. Leaving the accused in the
custody of the villagers, Pitambar went to the police station and lodged an
FIR.
3. After the criminal law was set in motion, the accused was arrested
and the investigating officer, Balvir Singh, PW 7, reached the spot and
carried out the investigation. The dead body of the deceased was sent for
post mortem. The Investigating Officer seized the garment of the deceased,
the clothes of the accused and certain other articles and prepared the
seizure memo. After recording the statements of the witnesses under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and completing further
investigation, the prosecution submitted the chargesheet under Sections 302
and 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”)
before the competent court which in turn committed the matter to the Court
of Session wherein it was registered as S.T. No. 1098 of 94.
4. The plea of the defence was one of denial and false implication.
5. The accused chose not to adduce any evidence.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses,
namely, Pitamber @ Pita, PW-1 (father of the deceased), Ganeshi, PW-2,
Dharam Veer, PW-3, Dr. S.K. Sharma, PW-4, Head Constable Mahfooj Khan, PW-
5, Dr. S.R.P. Mishra, PW-6, Balvir Singh, S.I., PW-7 and Constable Vinod
Kumar, PW-8.
7. Pitamber @ Pita PW-1 stated on oath that the accused influenced his
daughter Vineshwari, who was taking bath in the canal water to accompany
him to the nearby field. He has further stated that the accused attempted
to commit rape on his daughter and ultimately strangulated her throat that
caused her death. Ganeshi, PW-2 deposed that he along with Kali Charan was
there. On hearing the cry of the girl, he and Kali Charan went to the
field of Layak Singh and found that the accused was trying to commit rape
on Vineshwari and tied a shirt on her neck. Dharam Veer, PW-3, could not
be examined because he was unable to grasp the questions.
8. Dr. S.K. Sharma, PW-4 conducted the post mortem of Vineshwari and
found the following anti-mortem injuries:-
(1) Abrasion 5 cm. X 1 cm. over Rt. Ramus of jaw extending neck
region.
(2) Abrasion 3 cm. X 1 cm. over left Supra Clovicular region.
No injury was found on the private parts and/or thighs nor on chest
and buttocks. However, two vaginal smears were prepared and sent for
pathological examination.
Over eternal pericardium larynxes and both the lungs of the deceased,
deposits of blood were found. Except this, the liver, pancreas, spleen and
both kidneys were filled with blood. On interior examination, Larynx,
Trachea, Bronchi and Lungs were found congested. According to Dr. S.K.
Sharma, the death of the deceased took place due to asphyxia as a result of
throttling.
9. Dr. S.R.P. Mishra, PW-6 examined the accused Jugendra and found
certain contusions, abrasions and superfluous injuries on his body.
10. Balvir Singh, S.I., PW-7 proved the site plan, recovery memo of
underwear of Vineshwari, panchnama, report to C.M.O. and chargesheet.
11. The learned trial Judge appreciating the evidence on record found
that there were discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the
witnesses; that it was difficult to believe that the accused was laying
upon the deceased in the presence of Kali Charan and Ganeshi; that the
deposition of witnesses that they had found blood on the spot had not
received corroboration from the examination of Dr. S. K. Sharma, P. W. 4,
who had deposed that the blood had not oozed out from the body of the
deceased girl; that the colour of the under garment of the girl as stated
by her father did not tally with the colour described in the recovery memo;
that as per the medical report there was no injury on the private parts of
the deceased; that there was difference in the time mentioned by the
witnesses as regards the lodging of the FIR inasmuch as the investigating
officer arrived at the spot between 1.30 to 2.00 p.m. whereas the FIR was
lodged at 2.45 p.m.; and that the colour of the shirt was not properly
stated by the witnesses. Because of the aforesaid findings, the trial
court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused of the
charge.
12. The aforesaid judgment of acquittal came to be challenged before the
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2644of 1998 on the ground that the view
expressed by the learned trial Judge was totally perverse since minor
discrepancies and contradictions had been magnified and the real evidence
had been ignored. It was also put forth that the trial court failed to
appreciate the fact that the accused was apprehended at the spot and
nothing had been brought on record to dislodge the same. It was also urged
that the view expressed by the trial court was totally unreasonable and
defied logic in the primary sense.
13. The High Court perused the evidence on record and opined that
unnecessary emphasis had been laid on minor discrepancies by the trial
court and the view expressed by it was absolutely perverse and remotely not
a plausible one. Being of this view, it over-turned the judgment of
acquittal to that conviction and sentenced the accused to undergo life
imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 376 read with 511
of IPC with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
14. We have heard Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
appellant, and Mr. R. K. Dash, learned counsel for the State.
15. It is contended by Mr. Agrawal that the High Court has not kept in
view the parameters on which the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered
with and has converted one of acquittal to conviction solely by stating
that the judgment is perverse. It is urged by him that the discrepancies
and contradictions have been discussed in detail by the trial court and he
has expressed a well reasoned opinion that the prosecution has failed to
bring home the charge, but the said conclusion has been unsettled by the
High Court by stating that the said discrepancies are minor in nature. It
is his further submission that the ocular evidence has not received any
corroboration from the medical evidence and further the material
particulars have been totally overlooked and hence, the judgment of
conviction is sensitively vulnerable.
16. Mr. Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent, has
canvassed that the learned trial judge had treated the ordinary
discrepancies which are bound to occur when rustic witnesses have been
accentuated as if they are in the realm of high degree of contradiction and
inconsistency. It is submitted by him that when the judgment of the trial
court suffers from perversity of approach especially in relation to the
appreciation of evidence and the view cannot be treated to be a possible
one, no flaw can be found with the judgment of reversal by the High Court.
17. To appreciate the submissions raised at the bar and to evaluate the
correctness of the impugned judgment, we think it appropriate to refer to
certain authorities in the field which deal with the parameters for
reversing a judgment of acquittal to that of conviction by the appellate
court.
18. In Jadunath Singh and Others v. State of U.P.[1], a three Judge Bench
of this Court has held thus:-
“This Court has consistently taken the view that an appeal against
acquittal the High Court has full power to review at large all
the evidence and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence
the order of acquittal should be reversed. This power of the
appellate court in an appeal against acquittal was formulated by
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v.
King Emperor,[2] and Nur Mohammad v. Emperor[3]. These two
decisions have been consistently referred to in judgments of
this Court as laying down the true scope of the power of an
appellate court in hearing criminal appeals: see Surajpal Singh
v. State[4] and Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan[5]. ”
19. In Damodar Prasad Chandrika Prasad and Others v. State of
Maharashtra[6] it has been held that once the Appellate Court comes to the
conclusion that the view of the trial court is unreasonable, that itself
provides a reason for interference. The two-Judge Bench referred to the
decision in State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry,[7] to hold that if the finding
shocks the conscience of the Court or has disregarded the norms of legal
process or substantial and grave injustice has been done, the same can be
interfered with.
20. In Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and another v. State of Maharashtra[8], the
three-Judge Bench opined that there are no fetters on the plenary power of
the Appellate Court to review the whole evidence on which the order of
acquittal is founded and, indeed, it has a duty to scrutinise the probative
material de novo, informed, however, by the weighty thought that the
rebuttable innocence attributed to the accused having been converted into
an acquittal the homage of our jurisprudence owes to individual liberty
constrains the higher court not to upset the finding without very
convincing reasons and comprehensive consideration. This Court further
proceeded to state that the cherished principles of golden thread to prove
beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the wave of our law should not
be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of
doubt. Emphasis was laid on the aspect that a balance has to be struck
between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent
free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish the
marginal innocents.
21. In State of Karnataka v. K. Gopala Krishna[9], it has been held that
where the findings of the Court below are fully unreasonable or perverse
and not based on the evidence on record or suffer from serious illegality
and include ignorance and misreading of record, the Appellate Court will be
justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal. If two views are
reasonably possible and the view favouring the accused has been accepted by
the courts below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal.
Similar view was reiterated in Ayodhya Singh v. State of Bihar and
others.[10]
22. In Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.[11], it has been stated that
interference with an order of acquittal is called for if there are
compelling and substantial reasons such as where the impugned judgment is
clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been
unjustifiably eliminated.
23. In Girija Prasad (dead) by LRs. v. State of M. P.[12], it has been
observed that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has every
power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence as a whole
before it. It is, no doubt, true that there is a presumption of innocence
in favour of the accused and that presumption is reinforced by an order of
acquittal recorded by the trial court, but that is not the end of the
matter. It is for Appellate Court to keep in view the relevant principles
of law to re-appreciate and reweigh as a whole and to come to its own
conclusion in accord with the principle of criminal jurisprudence.
24. In State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran[13], it has been reiterated that the
Appellate Court can peruse the evidence and interfere with the order of
acquittal only if the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality or the decision is perverse.
25. In State of U. P. v. Ajai Kumar[14], the principles stated in State of
Rajasthan v. Sohan lal[15] were reiterated. It is worth noting that in the
case of Sohan Lal, it has been stated thus:-
“This Court has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate
court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan
through and if need be reappreciate the entire evidence, though
while choosing to interfere only the court should find an
absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on
record and not merely because the High Court could take one more
possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the
matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is
concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are
envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one
was against conviction or the other against an acquittal.”
26. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka[16], this Court held as under: -
“42 From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of the appellate
court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power
and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its
own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and
compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”,
etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an
appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language”
to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review
the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
27. In S. Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman and others[17], one of us (Dr. B.S.
Chauhan,J.), after referring to the decision in Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal
Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra[18], considered various aspects of
dealing with a case of acquittal and after placing reliance upon earlier
judgments of this Court, particularly in Balak Ram v. State of U.P.[19],
Budh Singh v. State of U.P.[20], Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy[21], Aruvelu
v. State[22] and Babu v. State of Kerala[23], held that unless there are
substantial and compelling circumstances, the order of acquittal is not
required to be reversed in appeal. Similar view has been reiterated in
Ranjitham v. Basvaraj & Ors.[24] and State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @
Vishnu Dutta[25].
28. Keeping in view the aforesaid well-settled principles, we are
required to scrutinize whether the judgment of the High Court withstands
the close scrutiny or conviction has been recorded because a different view
can be taken. First we shall refer to the ante mortem injuries which were
found on the deceased – (i) abrasion 5 cm x 1 cm over right ramus of jaw
extending to the neck and (ii) abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm over left supra
clavicular region. On internal examination, larynx, trachea and bronchi
were found congested. Both the lungs were congested. Brain was congested.
Partially digested food was found in the stomach. Small and large
intestine were half full. The doctor who conducted the post mortem has
opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of
throttling.
29. PW-6 Dr. S.R.P. Mishra had examined the accused and had found four
contusions and two abrasions on his forehead, left ear, neck, left side
chest and right shoulder. The learned trial Judge has given some emphasis
on these injuries but the High Court has expressed the view that when the
accused was apprehended at the spot by the witnesses, he had been given a
beating for the criminal act and hence, the minor injuries had no
significance.
30. The question is whether the trial court was justified in coming to
hold that there were discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of
the witnesses and, therefore, the case of the prosecution did not deserve
acceptance. The discrepancies that have been found have been described
while we have dealt with the trial court judgment. The medical report
clearly says that the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of
throttling. PW-4, the surgeon, who has conducted the autopsy, stated that
the deceased was wearing a shirt. PW-1, the father, has stated that she
was strangulated by a bush shirt. The learned trial Judge has given much
emphasis by drawing a distinction between a shirt and a bush shirt. The
High Court has treated that it is not a material contradiction. In the
FIR, it was clearly mentioned that the accused strangulated the deceased
with the help of her shirt. The medical report supports the same and,
therefore, the nature of the shirt which has been given importance by the
learned trial Judge, in our considered opinion, has been rightly not
accepted. The learned trial Judge has doubted the testimony of Ganeshi, PW-
2, that he had not seen the children taking the bath and further he has
also opined that it would not have been possible for the accused to lay
upon the deceased in their presence. In this regard, the distance has been
taken into consideration to discard the testimony. The High Court has
perused the testimony or deposition of PW-2 wherefrom it is evincible that
the spot was at the distance of 100 paces where he was grazing the cattle.
The Investigating Officer has deposed that there was water in about half
kilometre area as there was a crack in the canal as a consequence of which
water was flowing in front of the house of the informant. Thus, the High
Court has opined that the variance with regard to the details of distance
cannot be made the edifice to discard their testimony. The High Court has
treated Ganeshi as a natural and neutral witness and it has also observed
that his evidence could not have been thrown overboard on the ground of
absence of precise description of distance and the fact that he had not
seen the children bathing in the water. That apart, the inference by the
trial court is that when they had arrived on the scene, the accused could
not have been laying on the deceased in their presence. On a perusal of
his deposition as well as analysis made by the learned trial Judge, it is
evident that there was some time gap and distance. The accused was laying
on the deceased and throttled her neck with the shirt. The other witnesses
had arrived after five to ten minutes. The High Court has taken note of
the distance, time and the age of the deceased and has found that the
reasoning ascribed by the trial court to disbelieve the version of PW-2 is
unacceptable.
31. The learned trial Judge has noticed that both Pitambar and Ganeshi
had deposed that they had seen blood on the spot, though the medical report
clearly showed that there was no oozing of blood from any part of the body
of the deceased and further that there was no injury on the private parts
of the girl. It is apt to note here that there was some frothy liquid
coming out from the nose of the deceased. The High Court, while analysing
the said evidence, has observed that the witnesses though had stated to
have seen blood on the spot in their cross-examination, yet that would not
really destroy the version of the prosecution regard being had to the many
other facts which have been proven and further there was no justifiable
reason to discard the testimony of the father and others who were eye
witnesses to the occurrence.
32. The learned trial Judge has taken note of the fact that PW-1 had
stated in his cross-examination that the underwear of the deceased was
printed green in colour while PW-2 had stated that the colour of the
underwear was red in colour and according to the recovery memo, the colour
was red, white and yellow. The High Court has perused the memo, Ext. Ka2,
prepared by the Investigating Officer wherein it has been described that
the printed underwear was of red, white, yellow and black colour. That
apart, when the witnesses were deposing almost after a span of three years,
it was not expected of them to remember the exact colour of the printed
underwear. In any case, the High Court has observed that the said
discrepancy, by no stretch of imagination, could be treated as a
discrepancy of any significance.
33. Another aspect which has weighed with the learned trial Judge was
about the time of the lodging of the FIR. The said timing has no bearing
on the case of the prosecution inasmuch as rustic and uneducated villagers
could not have been precise on the time concept.
34. At this juncture, we may remind ourselves that it is the duty of the
court to shift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the
testimony of the witnesses. A testimony of the witness is required to
inspire confidence. It must be creditworthy. In State of U.P. v. M.K.
Anthony[26], this Court has observed that in case of minor discrepancies on
trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach
by taking the sentences torn out of context here or there from the
evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the
investigating officer and not going to the root of the matter would not
ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
35. In Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh[27], this Court
has held as follows: -
“24. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness
can possibly escape from making some discrepant details.
Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully
make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But Courts should
bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence
of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his
version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling
in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence
of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same
witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.”
36. In Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat[28], this Court has ruled
thus: -
“The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue
importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do
not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be
discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of
perception or observation should not be given importance. The
errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The
Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters
in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record
by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When
a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such
witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it
goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire
prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding
embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their
testimony being rejected by the Court. The courts, however,
should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether
if they are otherwise trustworthy.”
37. Judged on the aforesaid principles of law, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned trial Judge had given unnecessary importance on
absolutely minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter
and the High Court has correctly treated the analysis to be perverse.
Quite apart from that, it is noticeable from the judgment of the trial
court that the learned trial Judge has proceeded on a wrong footing by
saying that the case of the prosecution was that the accused had committed
rape on the deceased whereas on a perusal of the FIR, it is quite clear
that the allegation was that the accused has pulled the underwear of the
girl with the intention to commit rape. Similar is the testimony of
Ganeshi (PW-1) who has stated that the accused was laying on the girl. It
is difficult to understand how the learned trial Judge has conceived that
the case of the prosecution was that the accused had committed rape.
38. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis, there can be no trace of doubt
that the view taken by the learned trial Judge was absolutely unreasonable,
perverse and on total erroneous appreciation of evidence contrary to the
settled principles of law. It can never be treated as a plausible view.
In our considered opinion, only a singular view is possible that the
accused had made an attempt to commit rape and he was witnessed while he
was strangulating the child with a shirt. The result was that a nine year
old child breathed her last. The reasoning ascribed by the learned trial
Judge that she did not die because of any injury makes the decision more
perverse rather than reasonable. That apart, nothing has been brought on
record to show that there was any kind of enmity between the family of the
deceased and that of the accused appellant. There is no reason why the
father and the other witnesses would implicate the accused appellant in the
crime and would spare the real culprit. Quite apart from the above, he was
apprehended on the spot. The accused had taken the plea that the deceased
had died as she had drowned in the water. The medical report runs
absolutely contrary inasmuch there was no water in her stomach or in any
internal part of the body. There was no motive on the part of any of the
witnesses to falsely involve the accused in the crime. In view of our
aforesaid analysis, we entirely agree with the view expressed by the High
Court.
39. Before parting with the case, we may note that the appellant has
created a situation by which a nine year old girl who believed in him as a
co-villager and went with him in total innocence breathed her last before
she could get into her blossom of adolescence. Rape or an attempt to rape
is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic
equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The consequential death is more
horrendous. It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the body of a
woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation. It is said that one’s
physical frame is his or her temple. No one has any right of encroachment.
An attempt for the momentary pleasure of the accused has caused the death
of a child and had a devastating effect on her family and, in the ultimate
eventuate, on the collective at large. When a family suffers in such a
manner, the society as a whole is compelled to suffer as it creates an
incurable dent in the fabric of the social milieu. The cry of the
collective has to be answered and respected and that is what exactly the
High Court has done by converting the decision of acquittal to that of
conviction and imposed the sentence as per law.
40. Consequently, the appeal, being sans merit, stands dismissed.
..............................................J.
[Dr. B. S. Chauhan]
..............................................J.
[Dipak Misra]
New Delhi;
May 29, 2012
-----------------------
[1] AIR 1972 SC 116
[2] 61 Ind App 398 = AIR 1934 PC 227
[3] AIR 1945 PC 151
[4] 1952 SCR 193 = AIR 1952 SC 52
[5] (1961) 3 SCR 120 = AIR 1961 SC 715
[6] AIR 1972 SC 622
[7] AIR 1960 SC 391
[8] AIR 1973 SC 2622
[9] AIR 2005 SC 1014
[10] 2005 9 SCC 584
[11] 2004 13 SCC 257
[12] 2007 7 SCC 625
[13] 2007 3 SCC 755
[14] AIR 2008 SC 1269
[15] (2004) 5 SCC 573
[16] (2007) 4 SCC 415
[17] (2011) 2 SCC 83
[18] (2010) 13 SCC 657
[19] (1975) 3 SCC 219
[20] (2006) 9 SCC 731
[21] (2008) 5 SCC 535
[22] (2009) 10 SCC 206
[23] (2010) 9 SCC 189
[24] (2012) 1 SCC 414
[25] (2012) 1 SCC 602
[26] AIR 1985 SC 48
[27] AIR 1999 SC 3544
[28] AIR 1988 SC 696
