GHUREY LAL versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 30-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 499 
...._,. 
GHUREY LAL 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2006) 
JULY 30, 2008 
8 
.....,., 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Chapter XXX - Appeals - Powers of appellate courts -
HELO: Appellate courts have wide and extensive powers of c 
re-appreciating and re-evaluating the entire evidence, but the 
same must be used with great care and caution - Principles 
emerging from decisions of Supreme Court culled out. 
s.378 - Appeal against acquittal - Power of appellate D 
court - HELD: Appellate court would be justified in interfering 
with judgment of acquittal only when the same is palpably 
wrong, totally ill-founded or wholly misconceived, based on 
erroneous analysis of evidence and non-existent material, 
demonstrably unsustainable or perverse - Judgment of trial E 
Court analyzing the infirmities in prosecution case acquitting 
accused of the charge uls 302 /PC giving him benefit of doubt, 
is correct and is based on the fundamental principles of crimi-
nal jurisprudence - Judgment of High Court being wholly un-
sustainable is set aside - Principles crystallized by decisions 
F 
of Supreme Court set out - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302. 
-~ 
Medical Jurisprudence: 
Fire arm injuries - Prosecution case of bullet injury to 
deceased and pellet injuries to a witness by a single gunshot 
- HELD: It is well settled that a cartridge cannot contain pet-
G 
lets and bullet together - Injuries on deceased and the wit-
ness clearly establish that two shots were fired from two differ-
ent fire arms - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302. 
499 
H 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 
..., ___ 
A 
The accused-appellant was prosecuted for commis-
sion of offences punishable u/s 302 IPC and 307 IPC. The 
prosecution case was that there. was enmity between the 
accused and the deceased due to a property dispute. On 
the day of the incident when the deceased and PWs 1,2 
B and 4 alongwith two others were on their way home, they 
happened to pass by the home of the accused who was 
standing outside his house with a gun. The accused 
abused the deceased and fired a shot as a result of which 
the latter died at the spot and PW 2 received pellet inju-
c ries. The defence version u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 was that on the day of the incident. the 
accused came to know in the local market that the de-
ceased and PWs 2,4 and two others armed with 'pharsa', 
'lathis' and 'cattas' were looking for him. He returned to 
D his home and grabbed his gun. Meanwhile the deceased 
and others reached there. One of them fired from his 'catta' 
causing pellet injuries to PW 2. In the scuffle they tried to 
snatch away his gun which accidentally fired and hit the 
deceased. The trial court acquitted the accused, but on 
E 
appEtal by the State, the High Court convicted him u/s 302 
IPC. 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused it was con-
tended for the appellant that the judgment of the trial court 
was based on correct evaluation of the evidence and the 
F High Court was not justified in interfering with the same. 
~-
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. So far as the prosecution case of bullet in-
jury to the deceased and pellet injuries to PW-2 by a single 
G shot is concerned, according to the trial court, .the medi-
cal evidence coupled with the Ballistic Expert Report re-
vealed that two shots were fired from two weapons and 
~ 
this fact was inconsistent with prosecution story. The 
Ballastic Expert opined that the injuries to PW-2 were from 
H a different shot than the one that killed the deceased. The 
GHUREY LAL v. STATE OF U.P. 
501 
.._"" 
Ballistic Expert is a disinterested, independent witness 
A 
who has technical knowledge and experience. It follows 
that the trial judge was fully justified in placing reliance 
on his report. It is well settled that a cartridge cannot con-
tain pellet and bullet shots together. Therefore, the inju-
ries on the deceased and injured P.W. 2 clearly establish B 
""'( 
that two shots were fired from two different fire arms. [para 
16,17,21, 29 and 40] [510-0,E,F,G, 511-G, 516-0, 521-E] 
"Principles of Forensic Medicine" by Apurba Nandy; 
and "Firearms in Criminal Investigation and Trials" by 
Dr. B.R. Sharma - referred to. 
c 
2.1 The appellate court undoubtedly has wide and 
extensive powers of re-appreciating and re-evaluating the 
entire evidence, but the same must be used with great 
care and caution

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