GANESH K. GUL VE ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 632 · Decided: 21-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GANESH K. GUL VE ETC. 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
AUGUST 21, 2002. 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 378-Appeal against 
acquittal-Sixty accused persons-Unlawful assembly-Common object-
C Multiple murder-Attempt on life of one and injuries to others-Conviction of 
few of the accused and acquittal of others-High Court confirming conviction 
but reversing acquittal of one of the accused-Correctness of-On appeal 
held, the accused acquitted shared common object of unlawful assembly and 
did positive acts to achieve the object-Further slight variation in the positive 
act of accused to be ignored-Hence High Court rightly reversed acquittal 
D order-Conviction against other accused confirmed as case against them stands 
established-Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 452 read with 
149. 
According to the prosecution, 60 persons formed unlawful assembly 
with the motive to commit murder of 'S' and his sons. They assaulted 'S' 
E and his sons with deadly weapons and also caused injuries to other family 
members. They attempted to murder the third son too. 'S' and his two 
sons died and his other family members received injuries. Trial Court 
convicted 13 accused persons and acquitted rest of them. Cross appeals 
were filed and the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of 
F 11 accused persons and set aside acquittal of appellant-accused No.24 as 
he shared common object of unlawful assembly and did positive acts to 
achi~ve the object. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-accused No. 24 contended that the conclusion drawn and 
view taken by trial court acquitting appellant was a reasonable and 
G possible view which did not call for reversal by High Court and that the · 
prosecution failed to prove its case against him since there were material 
contradictions in the testimony of eye-witnesses and deposition by eye-
witnesses was not corroborated by medical evidence. · · - -
H 
Appellants in other appeals contented that prosecution had failed to 
632 
GANESH K. GULVE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
633 
prove the motive; that FIR was ante-timed and there was non-compliance A. 
of Section 157 Cr.P.C. in forwarding FIR to Magistrate. 
Appellant-accused No.53 contented that High Court has not properly 
considered the case against him. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Mere fact that a view other than the one taken by trial 
court can be legitimately arrived at by appellate court on reappraisal of 
evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with 
B 
an order of acquittal unless appellate court comes to conclusion that the 
entire approach of trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently C 
illegal or conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. [638-F, G) 
Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1996) SC 2035 and 
Awadhesh and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1988) SC 1158, referred 
to. 
1.2. In order to appreciate evidence, Court is required to bear in 
mind the set up and environment in which the crime is committed, the 
level of understanding of witnesses, the over jealousness of some of near 
relations to ensure that everyone even remotely connected with the crime 
D 
be also convicted and that everyone has a different way of narration of E 
same facts. Then the evidence is required to be appreciated to find out 
what part out of the evidence represents the true and correct state of 
affairs since it is for courts to separate grain from chaff. [638-G, H; 639-A) 
2.1. The presence of accused No.24 as a member of unlawful 
assembly and that he with others shared common object of doing away F 
with the deceased and injuring others was established even though there 
was some variations in the manner of his doing positive act to achieve the 
said object. In fact, he was the main person who had instigated the mob. 
High Court held that slight variations in the role attributed to accused 
No.24 to be of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
It convicted him on basis of the same evidence by which the other accused G 
persons had been convicted, stating that he cannot be treated differently. 
Under the circumstances it cannot be said that while reversing the order 
of acquit.ta! High Court did not bear in mind the principles required to 
be kept in view while deciding an appeal against an order of acquittal. 
[639-E, C, B, F) H 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.