GANESH SHAMRAO ANDEKAR & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2017] 5 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 30-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Directions issued
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) 5 S.C.R. 277 
GANESH SHAMRAO ANDEKAR & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 547 of2007) 
A 
MARCH 30, 2017 
B 
[R. F. NARIMAN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder -Appeal against 
the acquittal by trial court - Scope for interference - Appellants 
and victim-deceased were neighbours - There was enmity between 
them - Prosecution case that after a heated exchange, appellants 
chased down the deceased and assaulted him with weapons - When 
accused were chasing deceased, his wife (PW-13) and daughter 
(PW-2) had followed them and had witnessed the assault - PW-2 
took deceased to the ho~pital where he succumbed to the injuries -
Trial court acquitted all the accused - High Court, however, 
convicted the appellants and two others uls.302 r!w s.34 /PC - On 
appeal, held: Per Praful/a C. Pant, J.: Both PW-2 and PW-13 had 
described the blows inflicted in their presence, when they reached 
the spot and their conduct following the deceased was natural -
Truthfulness of fact that deceased was laken to hospital by PW-2 is 
corroborated from the evidence on record of PW-3, au/orickl'haw 
driver who took deceased to !he hospilal mid same cannot be 
doubted only for reason that name mentioned in hospital records 
was of different person and no/ of PW-2 - Furlhe1; FIR was prompt 
- PW-2 and PW-13 stated that appellant had il?flicted blow in groin 
area but there was no injury on the said par/ of body, however, 
same not a reason to disbelieve the statements since a living human 
being is not expected to remain motionless while being inflicted with 
blow after blows - Furthe1; ocular evidence of the two witnesses 
corroborated from the same blood group found 011 stained clothes, 
earth sample and weapons recovered from appellants - Theref<Jre, 
no error of law committed by High Court - Per R.F. Narinum, .T.: 
When an order of acquittal is appealed against. it can only be 
interfered with when order of trial court is unreasonable, palpably 
wrong or demonstrably unsustainable - ln the instanl case, order 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
of trial court does not fall in any of these categories - Hospital 
record shows that deceased was brought to Ho.spit al by one 'R' and H 
277 
278 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 
not PW-2, who was not examined by the prosecution - PW-3 has 
been disbelieved both by the trial court and the High Court. but 
was a key witness on behalf of prosecution and his version destroys 
the version of two interested eye-wit11esses PW-2 and PW-13 inasmuch 
as he specifically states that neither witness was present at the Jpot 
when actual assault leading tu murder took place - High Court 
wrongly states that mentioning of injury at the iliac region of 
deceased give strong credence to story of PW-2, here again. iliac 
region being region at the backside, there is, in fact, 110 injury near 
groin - Insofar as blood group is concerned, blood group of both 
the appellants and of deceased is of same group 'B ', .i·o it would not 
necessarily lead to the conclusion that the appellants were there, 
given the fact that blood of deceased is also of group 'B ', in any 
case, this factor cannot alone outweigh other factors pointed out 
by trial court - Thus, for all these reasons the judgment of High 
Court reversed and both appellants-accused acquitted. 
Referring the matter to CJI, to constitute an appropriate 
bench, the Court 
Per Prafulla C. Pant, J.: 
HELD: 1. There is no doubt, normally, where the trial court 
has acquitted the accused on the ground that charge stood not 
proved on the basis of evidence on record, and such view is 
reasonable, the High Court should not interfere with the same. 
However, such general rule cannot be extended against the spirit 
of clause (a) of Section 386 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
which empowers the appellate court to reverse the order of 
acquittal, and pass sentence on him in accordance with law. [Para 
11) (286-B-C] 
2. In the present case the High Court has given categorical 
finding that the finding arrived at by the trial court was perverse, 
as such, it cannot be said that the High Court could not have 
taken the view supported by evidence on record. [Para 14) [288-
D) 
3. So far as believing the testimony of PW-2 (daughter of 
the deceased) and PW-13 (widow of the deceased) is concerned, 
the same cannot be doubted by presuming that being women they 
could not have followed the deceased who was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.