Supreme Court of India
GANPATversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 649
- Decided
- 27 September 2010
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
The High Court's acquittal of all eleven accused is upheld as there is no compelling reason to interfere and the complainant was the aggressor.
Summary
Ganpat, the complainant, appealed against the High Court's order acquitting eleven accused persons charged under IPC sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 325. The trial court had convicted the accused, but the High Court set them free, holding that the complainant was the aggressor and that the prosecution failed to prove the participation of all accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court examined the principles governing appellate interference with acquittals, emphasizing that an order of acquittal may be disturbed only on "compelling and substantial" grounds and when the judgment is "clearly unreasonable". On reviewing the evidence, the Court found contradictions in the police statements, lack of clear material linking the accused to the crime, and credible testimony that the complainant party instigated the clash. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's reasoning that the complainant was the aggressor and that there was no basis to overturn the acquittal. All the appeals were therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- The appellate court's power to review and set aside an order of acquittal.
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were not aggressors.
- Whether there were "compelling and substantial" reasons to interfere with the High Court's acquittal.
- Interpretation of IPC sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 325 in the context of the facts.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 313, s. 319
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 323, s. 324, s. 325
Subjects
appellate reviewacquittalaggressorburden of proofIPC sections 148 149 302 323 324 325Criminal appealevidence assessmentprinciples of interference
Judgment
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 400
A GAN PAT
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 279-281 of 2002)
SEPTEMBER 27, 2010
B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 148, 302, 325, 324, 323 rlw s.
149 - Prosecution for murder and for causing injuries - In the
c incident, injuries sustained by the prosecution-witnesses as
well as accused persons - Contradiction in the police-
statement of complainant and FIR version, regarding number
of accused participating in the incident - One of the accused,
in his statement uls. 313 stated that complainant party was
0 the aggressor - I. 0. not recording the statement of the injured
accused - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court
- On appeal, held: In view of. the testimony of PWs, the
presence of the complainant a.t the scene of occurrence was
doubtful - In the facts of the case, the complainant party was
E the aggressor - High Court rightly acquitted the accused.
Appeal - Appeal against acquital - Principles to be
followed - Discussed.
Respondent-accused were prosecuted for having
F caused death of one person and for causing injuries to
others. The prosecution case was that eleven accused
persons attacked the victim party armed with weapons.
PW12 (the appellant-complainant} in his police-statement
named only four of the accused. The complainant lodged
.G FIR wherein he named eleven accused. Challan was filed
by the police naming only four of the accused out of the
eleven accused. On the application of the complainant u/
s. 319 Cr.P.C., the rest of the seven accused were also
charged. All the eleven accused were charged u/ss. 148,
H 400
GANPAT v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 401
A·
302, 325, 324, 323 r/w. s. 149 IPC. The trial court convicted
the accused. High Court acquitted all the accused.
Therefore, the instant appeals were filed by the appellailt-
complainant.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court B
HELD: 1. The following principles have to be kept in
mind by the appellate court while dealing with appeals,
particularly, against an order of acquittal: ·
(i) There is no limitation on the part of the appellate C
court to review the evidence upon which the order
of acquittal is founded and to come to its own
conclusion.
(ii) The appellate court can also review the trial court's o__
conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
. .
(iii) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the
State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal
the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent E
and adequate reasons may set aside the judgment ·
of acquittal.
(iv) An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only
whei:t there are "compelling and substantial reasons"
for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", F
it is• a compelling reason for interference.
(v) 'When the trial court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or has ignored
material documents like dying declaration/report of G
ballistic experts, etc., the appellate court is competent
to reverse the decision of the trial court depending
on the materials placed. [Para 5] [408-8-F]
Madan Lal vs. State of J & K (1997) 7 SCC 677; Ghurey
• H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 12 S.C.R.
A Lal vs. State ofU.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450; Chandra Mohan
Tiwari vs. State of MP. (1992) 2 SCC 105; Jaswant Singh
vs. State of Haryana (2000) 4 sec 484, relied on.
2.1. From the analysis of the statement of
prosecution-witnesses (PWs 12 and 13), various details
8
about the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses
as well as the accused spoken to by the doctor (PW-3),
categorical assertion of A-2 in his statement u/s. 313
Cr.P.C., conduct of 1.0. (PW-14) in not recording
C statements of the injured accused who were also present
in the same hospital when he visited to record the
statement of injured complainant party, it is clear that two
groups of people clashed inter se with weapons causing
injuries to each other, and thus, it is held that the
complainant party was the aggressor and in the absence
D of definite material and explanation from the prosecution
side, the High Court is right in acquitting all the eleven
accused. [Para 12] [411-G-H] [412-A]
2.2. It is clear from the evidence of prosecution-
E witnesses as well as the defence that A2, A-3 and A-11
also sustained injuries. Among these persons, A-2
sustained grievous injuries by the use of ghandasa.
There is no proper explanation by the prosecution about
the injuries sustained by the accused. Further, there is
F no definite evidence as to the place of occurrence. A-2
in his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. stated to the
effect that the complainant party was the aggressor.
[Para 9] [410-B-C]
2.3. According to Pws 12 and 13, the accused had
G inflicted injuries on them and blamed them for being the
aggressor and having caused the death of the deceased
and for inflicting injuries to others. PW-12 was
confronted with his statement made before the police
wherein he had not mentioned the names of seven
H
GANPAT v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 403
persons said to have participated in the commission of A
the crime. The only explanation for omission of those
names was that of nervousness. The very same person,
who made a complaint to the police, mentioned all the
names of the accused persons and assigned specific role
for each one of them. [Para 7] [409-E-F] B
2.4. The statement of PW-13 also makes the presence
of PW-12 at the spot to be doubtful. Though PW-13 has
denied the suggestion that he was under the influence
of alcohol at the time of occurrence, the same was
falsified by the version of the doctor (PW-3). PW-3, in his C
statement, has noted that the injured (PW13) was under
the influence of alcohol at the time of first arrival. [Para
8] [409-G-H] [410-A]
Case Law Reference: D
(1997) 1 sec 677 Relied on. Para 5
(2008) 10 s.cc 450 Relied on. Para 5.
(1992) 2 sec 105 Relied on. Para 5
E
(2000) 4 sec 484 Relied on. Para 5
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal.
Nos. 279-281 of 2002.
From the Judgment & Order dated 1.5.2001 of the High F
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 647-DB of 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 657-DB of 2000
and in Criminal Revision Petition No. 475 of 2000.
Rohit Sharma, Akshat Goel, Abhijat P. Medh, S. G
Gowthanan, Ashubhtiy for the Appellant.
K.B. Sinha, Roopansh Purohit, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
Kawaljit Kochar, Ashok K. Sharma, Kusum Chaudhary for the
Respondents.
H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. These appeals are directed
against the common judgment and final order dated
01.05.2001 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 647 and 657 of 2000 and
8
Criminal Revision Petition No. 475 of 2000 whereby the High
Court allowed the appeals and acquitted all the eleven accused
persons of the charges framed against them and dismissed
the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant herein.
c 2. The case of the prosecution is as under:
(a) Four-five days prior to the date of occurrence i.e.
25.10.1992, there was a dispute between Mohinder Singh
PW-13, who is the son of Shambhu (the deceased) and
D Madan Lal and Sat Pal, the accused, who used to run
Kiryana shop in the village, over payment of price of
crackers. But, later on, the dispute was settled between
them with the intervention of villagers and Mohinder Singh
paid an amount to the accused as the price of the
crackers.
E
(b) On 25.10.1992, at about 9.00 p.m., when Mohinder
Singh, after having meals, was going to his Garhi (outer
house), he found eight persons, namely, Sat Pal, Pala
Ram, Madan Lal, Jai Kumar, Ram Prakash, Rajesh, Ram
F Bhaj and Jai Singh standing there and they were armed
with gandasis and lathis. Sat Pal raised a lalkara that
Mohinder Singh should be taught a lesson for making less
payment for crackers and he gave a gandasi blow on his
right leg. Mohinder Singh shouted for help and on hearing
G the same, lshwar - his brother came there. Pala Ram gave
gandasi blows repeatedly from its reverse side on lshwar's
chin and jaw and Madan Lal gave two lathi blows on his
face and Jai Kumar gave lathi blows on his hands and
chest. On hearing the calls for help, Shambhu-the
H
GANPAT v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 405
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
deceased came to the spot. Rajesh and Ram Bhaj, who A
were standing in front of the house of Chandan came there
with lathis and Ram Bhaj gave a lathi blow on the head of
Shambhu and Rajesh gave a lathi blow on his legs. In the
meantime, lshwar's wife - Murti Devi also came there and
Naresh and Jai Singh gave lathi blow on Murti Devi. B
(c) Ganpat (PW-12)-the complainant (appellant herein),
who was standing at a distance of 10 yards from the place
of occurrence, shouted "Naa Maro Naa Maro''. Thereafter,
Ganpat brought a tractor from his house with the help of
his son Shri Pal for taking the injured to the hospital. When C
they were lifting the injured persons, Mohan Lal gave one
gandasi blow on his right arm and Rajesh gave a lathi blow
. on the back of his right hand palm and Ram Prakash gave
·a lathi blow on his left shoulder. Thereafter, Shri Pal,
Chappa and Satta and other persons came there and D
rescued them and all the injured persons were taken to
Primary Health Centre, Nissing. Dr. Sanjiv Grover, PW-3
examined the injured persons. lshwar and Shambhu were ·
referred to General Hospital, Kamal. Thereafter, Mohinder
Singh and Murti Devi were also referred to the same E
hospital. Dr. Sanjiv Grover sent the ruqa to the in-charge,
Police Station, Nissing on 26.10.1992 at 00:10 a.m. but
due to inadvertence he mentioned the time as 12:10 a.m.
On receipt of ruqa, ASI Rar:n Karan - PW-14 went to
Primary Health Centre to inquire about the condition of the F
injured and came to know that the injured persons have
been referred to General Hospital, Kamal. Then, on
26.10.1992, at 01 :15 p.m., the ASI recorded the statement
of Ganpat-the appellant herein in General Hospital, Kamal
and a case was registered and a formal FIR was recorded G
at 2:30 p.m. under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). He
could not record the statement of Shambhu as he was not
fit for making statement. After taking the clothes of the
H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R.
A injured persons into possession, he went to the scene of
occurrence and prepared rough site plan and lifted blood
stained earth. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and
the weapons were also recovered.
(d) On 09.11.1992, Shambhu died and the case was
B
converted to that under Sections 148, 302, 323, 324, 325
read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as "IPC"). On 12.03.1993, challan was filed by
the police in the Court, mentioning only the name$.of four
accused out of the 11 accused, whose names were
c mentioned in the FIR. On 09.04.1993, Ganpat (PW-12),
the appellant herein filed an application under Section 319
of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as
"Cr.P.C.") for summoning the other seven accused. The trial
Court, vide order dated 12.05.1993, allowed the
D application and summoned the other seven accused
persons to face trial along with the four accused. Vide
order dated 22.03.1994, the trial Court ordered for framing
of charges against all the 11 accused persons for offences
under Sections 148, 302, 325, 324, 323 read with Section
E 149 IPC.
(e) The prosecution examined 15 witnesses. After
recording the evidence, the trial Judge convicted Pala
Ram, Sat Pal Madan Lal, Ram Prakash, Rajesh, Ram Bhaj
F and Jai Kumar for the offence under Section 148 IPC and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of
payment of fine, each of them was ordered to undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for three months. They were
further convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149
G
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life. They were also convicted under Section 325 read with
Section 149 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/
- each. In default of payment of fine, each of them was
H
GANPAT v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 407
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three A
months. All of them were further convicted under Section
324 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months and further they were
convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC
and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous B
imprisonment for four months. Mohan Lal was convicted
under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months, Naresh, Ramesh Chand and
Jai Singh were convicted under Section 323 IPC and were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four c
months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were
ordered to run concurrently.
(f) Against the abovesaid order, Jai Singh, Ramesh,
Naresh and Mohan Lal filed Criminal Appeal No. 647 of
2000 and Pala Ram, Sat Pai, Madan Lal, Ram Prakash, D
Rajesh, Ram Bhaj and Jai Kumar filed Criminal Appeal
No. 657 of 2000 and Ganpat- the complainant and the
appellant herein filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 475
of 2001 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana for not
holding guilty four of the eleven accused, namely, Jai E
Singh, Ramesh, Naresh and Mohan Lal under Sections
302/149 IPC. Vide judgment dated 01.05.2001, the High
Court allowed the appeals and acquitted all the eleven
accused persons and dismissed the criminal revision
petition filed by the appellant herein. Challenging the F
judgment of the High Court, the appellanUcomplainant has
preferred these appeals by way of special leave petitions.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
respondents.
G
4. The only point for consideration in these appeals is
whether there is any ground for interference against the order
of acquittal by the High Court. This Court has repeatedly laid
down that the first appellate court and the High Court while
dealing with an appeal is entitled and obliged as well to scan H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R.
A through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence and
arrive a conclusion one way or the other.
5. The following principles have to be kept in mind by the
appellate court while dealing with appeals, particularly, against
an order of acquittal:
8
(i) There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court
to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded and to come to its own conclusion.
c (ii) The appellate court can also review the trial court's
conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
(iii) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State,
it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire
evidence on record and by giving cogent and adequate
D reasons may set aside the judgment of acquittal.
(iv) An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when
there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing
so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling
E reason for interference.
(v) When the trial court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or has ignored material
documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts,
etc. the appellate court is competent to reverse the
F
decision of the trial court depending on the materials
placed. [Vide Madan Lal vs. State of J & K, (1997) 7 SCC
677, Ghurey Lal vs. State of UP., (2008) 10 SCC 450,
Chandra Mohan Tiwari vs. State of M.P., (1992) 2 SCC
105, Jaswant Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 4 SCC
G 484].
6. With these principles, let us examine whether
interference is required in the impugned order of the High Court
acquitting all the eleven accused. It is not in dispute that the
H
GANPAT v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 409
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
incident occurred on the night of 25.10.1992. Among several A
witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution, material
witnesspHelied on by the trial court and the High Court are:
I '! i· : . ~
1
Ganpat f;W-12/complainant/appellant herein, Mohinder Singh
PW-13, l_nvestigation Officer PW-14 and Dr. Sanjiv Grover PW-
8
3, who treated. injured witnesses/accused.
t Before1 the trial court as well as the High Court, the
. accused took up the plea that they were innocent and there was
· danger to ·their life and the complainant party was the
aggressor. We have already adverted to the relevant fact that C
there was dispute between the accused and the complainant
party regarding the payment of price of crackers. A Panchayat
was convened and the amount of the price of crackers was
fixed by the Panchayat and still Mohinder Singh was
demanding the price and he himself used force and caused D
harm to the accused party. We perused the evidence of PWs
12 and 13. It is true that both of them sustained injuries in the
clash. According to them, the accused had inflicted injuries on
them and blamed them for being the aggressor and having
caused the death of Shambhu and for inflicting injuries to others. E
A perusal of the oral testimony of Ganpat PW-12 who was
confronted with his statement made before the police wherein
he had not mentioned the names of seven persons who is said
to have participated in the commission of the crime. The only
explanation for omission of those names was that of F
nervousness. It is useful to refer that the very same person who
made a complaint to the police mentioned all the names of the
accused persons assigned specific role for each one of them.
8. We also verified the statement of Mohinder Singh PW-
13 wherein he claimed that Ganpat PW-12 reached the spot G
when he and lshwar had already received the injuries. This also
makes the presence of PW-12 at the spot to be doubtful.
Though PW-13 has denied the suggestion that he was under
the influence of alcohol at the time of occurrence the same was
H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R.
A falsified by the version of Dr. Sanjiv Grover PW-3. In his
statement, he has noted that the injured Mohinder Singh was
under the influence of alcohol at the time of first arrival.
9. It is also clear from the evidence of prosecution
witnesses as well as the defence that Satpal A2, Madan Lal
8
A-3, Jai Kumar A-11 also sustained injuries. Among these
persons, A-2 sustained grievous injuries by the use of
ghandasa. There is no proper explanation by the prosecution
about the injuries sustained by the accused. Further, there is
C no definite evidence as to the place of occurrence. It is also
relevant to note the statement of accused Satpal A-2 recorded
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. After denying several
questions, as regard to the last question about the alleged
incident as set out by the prosecution, he explained before the
Addi. Sessions Judge on 15.07.2000. The relevant question
D and answer is as follows:-
"Q.20. Have you to say anything else?
Ans. The facts of this case are that on the day of
occurrence Mohinder PW came at the house of Jai Kumar
E
in drunken condition and started abusing him. I and Madan
were also present there being his nephew and also on
account of Diwali festival. Jai Kumar and his wife stopped
them from abusing and thereafter Mohinder PW went back
and after sometime he came along with Shambu
F deceased, Ganpat and lshwar Singh. Mohinder PW gave
a gandasi blow on my head and I fell down on the ground.
Thereafter Jai Kumar and his wife Kitabo Devi came
forward to save me and then all of them started causing
injuries to them as well as to Madan Lal and me. Jai Kumar
G etc. also caused injuries to the complainant in their self
defence. Initially I, Pala Ram, Madan Lal and Jai Kumar
were challaned and remaining accused were found to be
innocent because all the eye witnesses including the
complainant Ganpat and injured witnesses related-lo
H
GANPAT v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 411
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
deceased, had stated in their statement under section 161 A
Cr.P.C. that only four persons i.e. myself, Pala Ram,
Madan and Jai Kumar were responsible for the death of
Shambu and remaining accused were not named by them
at all. The matter was placed before Panchayat also in
which the complainant party had admitted that seven a
persons have been wrongly named. In fact the complainant
party was aggressor and they entered the house of Jai
Kumar and caused injuries to me, Madan, Jai Kumar and
Kitabo Devi."
10. If we consider the above assertion by A-2 and the
c
evidence of PWs 12, 13 as well as Dr. Sanjiv Grover PW-3
about the injuries sustained by the persons belonging to the
complainant's and accused party, the conclusion of the High
Court that the complainant party was the aggressor cannot be
ignored. D
11. It is also relevant to note the evidence of 1.0. PW-14.
His evidence.shows that after the occurrence when he.visited
the hospital, he noticed not only the injured witnesses but also
the injured accused. He admitted that Madan Lal A-3 and E
Satpal A-2 have sustained injuries and he also admitted that
he had not recorded their statement as to in what manner they
sustained injuries. Though he answered that they refused to
make statement, admittedly he had not taken any action against
them for refusing to make statements. F
12. From the analysis of the statement of prosecution
witnesses PWs 12, 13, various details about the injuries
sustained by the prosecution witnesses as well as the accused
spoken to by Dr. PW-3, categorical assertion of Satpal A-2 in
respect of question No. 20 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., G
conduct of 1.0. PW-14 in not recording statement of the injured
accused who were also present in the same hospital when he
visited to record the statement of injured complainant party, it
is clear that two groups of people clashed inter se with
H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R.
A weapons causing injuries to each other, we hold that the
complainant party was the aggressor and in the absence of
definite material and explanation from the prosecution side, the
High Court is right in acquitting all of them.
13. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in
8
the appeals. On the other hand, we are in entire agreement with
the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. Consequently, all
the appeals are dismissed.
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "appellate review"Sign in to search