GANESH DATT versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 99 · Decided: 11-06-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 6 S.C.R. 99 
GANESH DATI 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No.1881 of 2011) 
JUNE 11, 2014 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149, 3071149, 3241149, 
A 
8 
ss. 147 and 148 - Conviction under - Prosecution case that 
accused armed with weapons assaulted father and his two 
C 
sons resulting in death of one son and injuries to other- Order 
of conviction and sentence by courts below - Held: Failure 
of prosecution to prove the guilt of appellant beyond 
reasonable doubt - As regards assault on the deceased, 
ocular evidence inconsistent with medical evidence -
D 
Weapons used for the occurrence not recovered - Enmity 
between the appellant family and the deceased family -
Father and his sons were interested as well as inimical 
witnesses - Denial of injuries on the person of appellant by 
them -
Testimonies of the prosecution witness inconsistent 
E 
as regards the place of occurrence - Also blood stained earth 
not sent for chemical examination - Thus, order of conviction 
set aside - Evidence. 
According to the prosecution, the appellants-A 1 to 
A 5 armed with dangerous weapons attacked PW3 and 
his sons resulting in the death of his son 'P' and injuries 
to his son, PW2. PW3 and his sons-PW1, PW2 witnessed 
the occurrence. They stated that when they were sitting 
F 
in front of their house, appellants armed with weapons 
came there and 'S' shouted to kill them and there~fter, 'S' 
G 
and 'ON' fired shots at 'P' and PW2. Other appellants also 
attacked them. PW 2 while defending the attack sustained 
injuries. Thereafter, the appellants fled away. The 
complaint was lodged. 'P' and PW2 were admitted in the 
99 
H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A hospital. The same day 'P' succumbed to his injuries. The 
trial court convicted A 1 to A 5 under sections 302/149, 
307/149, 324/149, s. 147 and s. 148 IPC and sentenced 
them accordingly. The High Court upheld the order. 
B 
c 
Hence, the instant appeal. 
• 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of 
the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, 
they are entitled to be acquitted. [Para 20] [115-C] 
2.1. The eye-witnesses namely PWs 1 to 3 and CW-
1, widow of deceased 'P' have testified that accused 'S' 
and accused 'ON' fired shots with pistol and gun 
respectively at 'P' during the occurrence resulting in 
0 
injuries but as per the medical evidence there was no gun 
shot injury found on any part of the body of 'P'. The 
ocular evidence was totally inconsistent with the medical 
evidence with respect to assault by accused 'S' and 'DN'. 
If this matter is false, there is no guarantee that the other 
E assault deposed to by the eye-witnesses was also not 
false. [Para 14] [110-C-E] 
2.2. As per the ocular testimony the weapons used 
in the occurrence were country made pistol, gun, axe and 
lathis. PW7 Sub-Inspector stated that he went to the 
F occurrence place during investigation and seized 10 
bullets of 12 bore from the spot out of which 4 were 
empty and 6 were live. Initial investigation was done by 
PW7 Sub-Inspector and thereafter, it was continued and • 
concluded by PW5 Inspector. They have not taken any 
G steps to recover the weapons alleged to have been used 
in the occurrence. No scientific method of investigation 
was pressed into service. There was no explanation in 
the testimonies of the Investigating Officers in this regard. 
The lethargic attitude of the officers conducting 
H investigation is deplorable. [Para 15] [110-G-H; 111-A-B] 
GANESH DATT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
101 
2.3. In the trial, in examination-in-chief PW1 did not A 
state anything about the injuries on 'S' and 'ON'. In the 
cross-examination he testified that 'S' and 'ON' did not 
suffer any injury during the occurrence and further stated 
that 16-17 days prior to occurrence 'S' suffered injuries 
in a jeep accident. This testimony cannot be true for the B 
reason that doctor examined him in the hospital on the 
occurrence day and found injuries which were fresh on 
his body. PW2 in his examination-in-chief did not state 
anything about the injuries on the accused. In the cross-
exam i nation he stated that during the occurrence C 
accused 'S' snatched the axe from the hands of accused 
'J' and his hand was injured during snatching process 
and an injury was also caused near the eyes by the axe. 
He also stated that he did not see whether any injury was 
caused to '

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.