MEKALA SIVAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

cause of justice. Thus, when the judgment under appeal has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice by some misapprehension or misreading of evidence or by ignoring material evidence then this Court is not only empowered but is well expected to interfere to promote the cause of justice. It is not the practice of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of examining whether the finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the courts below are correct or not. It is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence, that this Court would interfere with such finding of fact. This Court does not function as a regular Court of Appeal in every criminal case. Normally, the High Court is a final court of appeal and this Court is only, court of special jurisdiction. [Para 14-16, 18][994-G-H; 995-A-C; 996-B] Subedar v. The State of U.P. (1970) 2 SCC 445 : [1971] 1 SCR 826; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 : [1983] 3 SCR 280; Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158 : [1977] 1 SCR 280; Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) SCC OnLine SC 176 – referred to.

2.1 The submissions raised by the appellant are on the weaker side in relation to testimonies of prosecution witnesses as it has been contended that PW-1 to PW-4 are the supporters of Telugu Desam Party and their evidence were contradictory with respect to the nature of injuries inflicted upon the deceased, place of occurrence etc. The testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission. [Para 22][998-E-F]