Interference with finding of fact:
In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not normally reappreciate the evidence and findings of fact; but where the findings of the High Court are perverse or the findings are likely to result in excessive hardship, the Supreme Court would not decline to interfere merely on the ground that findings in question are findings of fact. After referring to various judgments on the scope in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 141, this Court in para (35) summarized the principles as under:-
“35. From a close examination of the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid series of decisions as referred to hereinabove on the question of exercising power to interfere with findings of fact by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, the following principles, therefore, emerge:
• The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India are very wide.
• It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact given by the High Court if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly.
• When the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective cases fell short of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe and improper to act upon it.
• The appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record.
• The appreciation of evidence and finding results in serious miscarriage of justice or manifest illegality . • Where findings of subordinate courts are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence or irrelevant evidence or there are material irregularities affecting the said findings or where the court feels that justice has failed and the findings are likely to result in unduly excessive hardship.
• When the High Court has redetermined a fact in issue in a civil appeal, and erred in drawing inferences based on presumptions.
• The judgment was not a proper judgment of reversal.”