GANPAT versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 27-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 400 
GAN PAT 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 279-281 of 2002) 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 
[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 
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: 
· 
B 
(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 
8 prosecution-witnesses (PWs 12 and 13), various details 
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 pro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.