Skip to content


Ujagar Singh and ors.. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Leave Petitions (Cri.) Nos. 1319 of 1977 and 20, 138 and 261 of 1978
Judge
Reported in(1979)4SCC530
AppellantUjagar Singh and ors..
RespondentState (Delhi Administration)
Excerpt:
- [a.d. koshal,; a.p. sen and; y.v. chandrachud, jj.] - constitution of india — article 136 — practice — special leave can be granted only in very exceptional circumstances — a question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the court necessary -- in view of the concurrent findings of the sessions court and the high court on the principal issues arising in the case we see no justification for granting special leave for a reconsideration of the question as regards the guilt of the petitioners. a question of law of general public importance or a decision which shock the conscience of the court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave......in these petitions. it is time that it was realised that the jurisdiction of this court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. a question of law of general public importance or a decision which shock the conscience of the court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave. if there is anything at all in this case which shocks our conscience it is this: that, if the death sentence was at all to be awarded, it should have been awarded to the hirelings and that the husband and his mistress who promised to pay to the hirelings large sums of moneys in order to procure the murder of the wife should have been awarded the lesser sentence. but we shall not go into that question any further, since the sessions court and the high.....
Judgment:

A.D. Koshal,; A.P. Sen and; Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.

1. In view of the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the High Court on the principal issues arising in the case we see no justification for granting special leave for a reconsideration of the question as regards the guilt of the petitioners. The evidence establishes the complicity of the petitioners in the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond perhaps even an unreasonable doubt. So explicit and eloquent are the facts of the case. There is hardly a case, civil or criminal, which does not raise some question of law or the other. But no question of law of general public importance is involved in these petitions. It is time that it was realised that the jurisdiction of this Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. A question of law of general public importance or a decision which shock the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave. If there is anything at all in this case which shocks our conscience it is this: that, if the death sentence was at all to be awarded, it should have been awarded to the hirelings and that the husband and his mistress who promised to pay to the hirelings large sums of moneys in order to procure the murder of the wife should have been awarded the lesser sentence. But we shall not go into that question any further, since the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrently taken the view that the sentence of life imprisonment is enough to meet the ends of justice insofar as the two latter are concerned.

2. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //