A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case discusses the Supreme Court’s approach under Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India regarding the grant of special leave to appeal in criminal cases. The appellant, Pritam Singh, was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Buta Singh. Both the trial court and the High Court found the prosecution’s case substantially true, supported by five eye-witnesses. Pritam Singh appealed to the Supreme Court via special leave, challenging the factual conclusions and credibility of witnesses. The Supreme Court, however, held that it will not interfere unless exceptional and special circumstances are shown and that substantial and grave injustice has occurred. The Court clarified that special leave under Article 136 does not convert it into a regular court of criminal appeal. Instead, it reaffirmed that the appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 must be exercised sparingly and with caution, only in extraordinary situations. The decision upholds important judicial principles on scope and limitations of appellate review by the Supreme Court, particularly when lower courts agree on facts and credibility of witnesses.

Keywords:
Article 136 Special Leave, Murder Conviction Appeal, Supreme Court Jurisdiction, Factual Review, Criminal Appeal Discretion

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Pritam Singh v. The State

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1950

iii) Judgement Date:
May 5, 1950

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Saiyid Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, Mukherjea, and Das, JJ.

vi) Author:
Justice Saiyid Fazl Ali

vii) Citation:
Pritam Singh v. The State, [1950] SCR 453

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 34

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Appellate Procedure

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The matter concerns the constitutional framework governing the appellate powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136. Article 136 provides extraordinary jurisdiction to the apex court to interfere in decisions of any court or tribunal across the country. The significance lies in defining judicial self-restraint and doctrinal limitations on the Supreme Court when exercising discretionary powers in criminal appeals. The appellant, Pritam Singh, had been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Buta Singh. The High Court upheld the verdict, and the appellant sought refuge under Article 136.

The Supreme Court, however, clearly emphasized that this discretionary power is not meant to serve as a substitute for regular criminal appeals and must not be used to re-appreciate factual findings unless serious injustice or extraordinary errors are evident. This case thus created a jurisprudential benchmark in India’s legal framework defining the scope, standards, and guiding principles for granting special leave in criminal appeals under constitutional provisions.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 28th December 1948, Pritam Singh allegedly made indecent advances towards a woman named Punni, who was the wife of Kakarra Chamar. She had been brought into the village 10–12 years prior by the deceased, Buta Singh. After the incident, Buta Singh confronted Pritam Singh and advised Kakarra to report the matter to the police. However, the next day, Mal Singh, a prosecution witness, persuaded Kakarra to drop the complaint since Pritam Singh had allegedly apologized.

Two days later, on 30th December at around 5 p.m., as Buta Singh exited his house, Pritam Singh approached and shot him in the abdomen with a 12-bore double-barrelled gun. Buta Singh died shortly thereafter. Witnesses including Punjab Singh and Na! Singh went to the Abohar Police Station, 13 miles away, and lodged the First Information Report (FIR). In the FIR, they mentioned the facts of the incident and also alleged that Pritam Singh and his brother Hakim Singh were drunk during the murder. However, other witnesses did not corroborate the claim of intoxication or Hakim Singh’s involvement.

The police filed a chargesheet against Pritam Singh alone. The trial was conducted before the Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, and five eyewitnesses including Punjab Singh, Mitta Singh, Mal Singh, Nikka Singh, and Phoolan (mother of the deceased) testified against Pritam Singh. The Sessions Judge and four assessors unanimously found the evidence credible and consistent. The High Court affirmed the findings and the conviction.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the Supreme Court can interfere under Article 136 in a criminal appeal involving factual findings already affirmed by two lower courts?
ii. Whether the evidence led by prosecution was sufficient and credible to convict the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
iii. Whether the discretionary power under Article 136 allows a full factual reappraisal in every special leave case?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:
The counsel for Pritam Singh, Jai Gopal Sethi, argued that all five eyewitnesses were closely related to each other and to the deceased. He pointed out that they belonged to a hostile faction opposed to the accused, creating a strong motive to falsely implicate Pritam Singh. They had allegedly made discrepant statements about their positions during the occurrence both in their police statements and at trial. Moreover, some witnesses had denied their earlier statements in front of the police or the committing magistrate, indicating inconsistency and unreliability. He argued that the incident likely occurred at night when no one could identify the actual assailant, and the implication of the accused arose due to longstanding enmity. The defence also raised doubts on whether Pritam Singh fired the gun, suggesting fabrication of evidence.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that:
The Advocate-General for East Punjab, Basant Kishan Khanna, submitted that five independent eyewitnesses confirmed the accused’s role in the murder. The FIR was lodged without any delay, and names of four witnesses were recorded at the earliest stage. No reason existed for these villagers to conspire and falsely implicate Pritam Singh in such a serious crime. Both the Sessions Court and the High Court thoroughly scrutinized the statements, weighed the credibility of each witness, and found their testimony trustworthy. He further emphasized that the appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 does not entail a wholesale re-examination of facts, especially when both lower courts have arrived at the same conclusion.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India – Grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to allow appeals from any judgment, order, or sentence of any court or tribunal.
ii. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code – Punishment for murder.
iii. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court held that it will not entertain criminal appeals under Article 136 unless the case demonstrates exceptional and special circumstances, grave miscarriage of justice, or significant questions of law. The Court emphasized that once two courts below concur on facts, it cannot interfere just because an appellant challenges factual findings. The appeal was dismissed because the evidence was consistent, credible, and supported by multiple witnesses, and the prosecution’s version did not seem improbable or fabricated.

b. OBITER DICTA (IF ANY)

The Court noted that “once special leave is granted, it does not open the door for a full factual reappraisal” unless the very grounds for leave match the grounds pressed at the final hearing. Citing Ibrahim v. Rex, [1914] A.C. 615, the Court emphasized the need for consistent standards at both the preliminary and final stages of a special leave petition.

c. GUIDELINES (IF ANY – WRITE IN DETAIL AND IN POINTERS AS THE CASE MAYBE)

• Special leave under Article 136 is not a matter of right.

• The power must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.

• The Court will not entertain appeals to reappraise facts already affirmed by two courts.

• Appellants cannot raise issues at final hearing that were not part of the grounds for leave.

• Standard of review in Article 136 must be uniform across civil, criminal, and tribunal cases.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment in Pritam Singh v. The State established a cornerstone in Indian appellate jurisprudence. It restricts indiscriminate invocation of the Supreme Court’s discretionary jurisdiction and fortifies the principle that appellate review must be cautious, limited, and grounded in significant injustice or legal misapplication. This ruling remains pivotal in ensuring that Supreme Court’s docket remains focused on matters of national, constitutional, or exceptional legal relevance, and does not serve as another court of fact. The principles laid down have since been followed in several landmark decisions, safeguarding judicial time and promoting efficiency in justice delivery.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Ibrahim v. Rex, [1914] A.C. 615
ii. Kapildeo v. The King, Federal Court

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Article 136 of the Constitution of India
ii. Section 302, Indian Penal Code
iii. Section 34, Indian Penal Code