RAMAKANTHA KHADIGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for grant of a certificate, under Article 134 (1) (c) of the constitution, to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of a Division bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1954, dismissing the appeal by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence under Sections 330 and 448, penal Code, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Sambalpur. The petitioner, Ramakantha Khadigar, was during the relevant period serving as the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Paikmal P. S. The case against him was that during the night of 2-5-1954 he tortured one Dasarathi Duba (P. W. 9) who was suspected to have committed burglary with a view to extort a concession from him. The said suspect, unable to bear the torture, subsequently attempted to commit suicide by cutting his throat. He, however, recovered from his injury to the neck. The evidence against the petitioner consisted mainly of the statement of the victim dasarathi Duba (P. W. 9) and of one Arjun Ganda (P. W. 3) who was one of the eye-witnesses to the torture. There was also medical evidence to prove the nature of the cut injury on the neck of Dasarathi Duba and also of some injuries on his leg which supported the prosecution case that bamboos were pressed over his legs and ankles by the Police party to extort confession. The Assistant Sessions Judge believed their evidence and a Division Bench of this Court on appeal also accepted their evidence notwithstanding some unsatisfactory features which have been noticed in the main judgment.

(2.) ON the above facts it would appear that no question of law is involved and that the case is concluded by concurrent findings of fact. But Mr. Palit, on behalf of the petitioner, relied on a Division Bench decision or this Court reported in S. K. Ghosh v. Maheshwar Dehuri, ILR (1954) Cut 537 : (AIR 1954 Orissa 248) (A) and urged that a certificate should be granted. We therefore thought it advisable to examine the various decisions of the Supreme court regarding the principles to be followed by the High Court in granting a certificate under Article 134 (1) (c) against an affirming judgment of the High Court in a criminal proceeding and we are grateful to the learned counsel for both sides for the assistance rendered by them.

(3.) UNDER Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 134 (1) an appeal lies, as a matter of right, against the judgment of a High Court in a criminal proceedings, in respect of cases which come within the scope of these two clauses. But a certificate under Clause (c) of Article 134 (1) stands on a different footing. As pointed out by the Supreme court in Sunder Singh v. State of U. P. AIR 1956 SC 411 (B):