JUDGMENT
Nevaskar, J.
1. This is a petition for certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c), Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner Abdul Kareem S/o Abdul Hakeem Musalman of Lakhakhedi was prosecuted along with others under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.
3. The learned Sessions Judge convicted Abdul Kareem under Section 302, I.P.C. for having fired a gun at deceased Kasam which resulted in his death while he was going from his village Bagla to attend weekly Bazar of Mahidpur along with P. W. Ismail and P-W. 3 Ibrahim. He was sentenced to transportation for life.
4. Accused preferred appeal to this Court wherein the decision of the learned Sessions Judge was upheld. The present petition is directed against that decision.
5 Facts as they appear from the record indicate that the deceased along with P.W. 1 Ismail and P.W. 3 Ibrahim started from his village to go to Mahidpur & that the deceased had a horse with him to ride upon. The probable time of starting is between 9 and 10 a.m. It also appears to be clear that by 12 noon the party consisting of P. W. 5 Ahmad, P.W. 1 Ismail and P.W. 3 Ibrahim reached Mahidpur with the dead body which was carried in Ahmad’s cart.
This Ahmad had followed the party of the aforesaid three persons Kasam, Ismail and Ibrahim after a short interval. The statements of P. W. 7 Nathuram and P. W. 6 Onkar clearly indicate these facts. These two witnesses P.W. 1 Ismail and P.W. 3 Ibrahim state on oath that they saw the accused Abdul Kareem firing the gun at Kasam. The presence of these two witnesses at the time of the incident, on account of these facts was considered to be so highly probable that it was proper for the Court to act upon that supposition.
The place where the incident took place was nearabout the field of accused Abdul Kareem and earth smeared with human blood was found on the spot. In the First Information Report which was immediately lodged Abdul Kareem was mentioned as the person who fired gun at Kasam which shot through his chest. On these materials the accused was convicted.
6. The principle point urged by Mr. Rege is that one circumstance which appears from the statement of witness Sobharam was not taken into account in convicting the accused. This was with regard to the presence of the accused at some other place at the alleged time of the incident.
7. The point with regard to the ‘alibi’ of the accused was not specifically pressed by the learned Counsel who urged the case before us. Main points urged before us were that since witnesses Ismail and Ibrahim cannot be believed in so far as the other accused are concerned they should not be believed even with regard to this accused.
It was also urged that even assuming that the party consisting of Kasam, Ismail and Ibrahim left their village together yet after a short distance from their village Bagla road bifurcated and both led to Mahidpur and that the deceased1 might have gone by a road different than that by which the witnesses went.
8. Both these points urged have been considered by us. The theory of ‘alibi’ was suggested in the statement of ‘Panch-witness’ Sobharam whom the prosecution did not examine and he was examined as a Court-witness. This witness made contradictory statements with regard to the seizure of the gun article (1) by the Police. Having regard to the other material on record the contention with regard to the absence of the accused from the scene of the occurrence cannot be attached much weight.
9. The principles which govern the matters of grant of certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court are well established and it is only where there is a substantial question of law or there has been an infringement of the essential principles of justice or there is a matter of great public importance that this Court would consider it pro-i per to grant a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. It would also consider it proper to grant a certificate where exceptional and special circumstances exist which make it just for the Supreme Court to intervene.
10. None of these factors are involved in the present case. The matter entirely rests upon the assessment of the evidence direct and circumstantial bearing on the question with regard to the guilt of the accused.
11. I do not think this is a fit case for the grant of the certificate asked for.
12. The application is, therefore, rejected.
Samvatsar, J.
13. I agree.