LexEKNATH GANPAT AHER AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 577
EKNATH GANPAT AHER AND ORS.
V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2007)
MAY 7, 2010
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,
JJ.)
A
B
Penal Code, 1860: ss.3021149 :-- Previous enmity over
land -
Mob of 75-100 persons entered into clash with C
complainant party -
Two persons belonging to complainant
party died and about 9 persons received injuries - About 14
accused persons received injuries including some who
suffered grievous injuries - Conviction of 35 accused persons
by trial Court - High Court acquitted 21 and upheld conviction
D
of 14 accused/appellants -:- On appeal, held: There was no
evidence to specifically ascribe any definite role to any of the
accused/appellants - Also there was no explanation regarding ·
the injuries on accused persons - Appelliints entitled to
benefit of doubt and hence acquitted - Criminal trial - Benefit
E
of doubt.
Prqsecution case was that there was a dispute
between the complainant party and the accused persons
regarding certain land. On the fateful day, a mob of abouJ
75-100 people gathered at the place of occurrence. In the
F
clash, PWs 2, 5, 8 and 9 received injuries whereas the two
others received grievous injuries resulting in their death
in the hospital. A number of accused persons also
. received injuries including some having received
grievous injuries.
G
Trial Court convicted 35 accused persons under
ss.302/149 IPC while acquitting one. The High Court, on
appeal, acquitted 21 of the 35 convicted accused
577
H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[201 OJ 6 S.C.R.
A persons. Fourteen convicted accused persons filed the
appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Nine persons including four witnesses
B belonging to the complainant party received injuries
whereas as many as 14 accused persons received
injuries including some who even suffered grievous.
injuries. Admittedly, there was a mob of about 75-100
persons who descended from the hill side to the place
c of occurrence by pelting stones and a melee followed.
Not even a single witness including the injured witnesses
could specifically state as to who had caused what injury
either to the deceased or to the injured witnesses or to
the accused. A very general statement was made that the
0 accused persons were armed witti deadly weapons and
caused injuries to the complainant party. In a situation
where a mob of 75-100 persons entered into a clash with
the complainant party it could not have been possible for
any of the witnesses, who would naturally be concerned
E with their own safety and to save themselves from the
assault, to see as to who had inflicted what type of injury
either on the deceased or on the injured witnesses. In
view of such omnibus and vague statements given by
the witnesses, the Court below acquitted as many as 21
accused persons on the ground that there was no
F evidence on record to implicate them in the offences
alleged. There being no other evidence to specifically
ascribe any definite role to any of the 14 appellants, it
was difficult to hold that any of the appellant had inflicted
any particular injury on any of the deceased or the injured
G witnesses. Unless there is cogent and specific evidence
attributing a specific role in the incident to the accused
persons, who were themselves injured and there being
no explanation forthcoming as to such injuries, it would
be unsafe to pass an order recording conviction and
H sentence against the appellants, moreso when the
EKNATH GAN PAT AHER AND ORS. v. STATE ·OF /579
MAHARASHTRA
prosecution produced, in support of its case{ witnesses
A
who were inimical to the accused persons. It is crystal
clear from the records that land of Gat No. 170 was the
bone of contention between the complainant party and
the accused. Civil cases with regard to the question of
title and ownership to the said land were instituted by
B
both the accused and the complainant party which are
pending final adjudication. [Paras 19, 20] [586-E-G; 587-
B-E]
1.2. It is an accepted proposition that in the case of
group rivalries and enmities, there is a general tendency C
to rope in as many persons as possible as having
participated in the assault. In such situations, the Courts
are called upon to be very cautious and sift the evidence
with care. Where after a close scrutiny of the evidence, a
reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court with, _D
regardExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.