IMPORTANT POINT
An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860- Sections 148, 302, 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34-Prosecution of eleven accused persons for causing death of one person and injuries to others by assaulting them with gandasis and lathis-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal –Allowed by High Court acquitting all the eleven accused persons of the charges framed against them -Appeal- Evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as the defence showed that A2,A-3, A-11 also sustained injuries- Among these persons, A-2 sustained grievous injuries by the use of ghandasa- There was no proper explanation by prosecution about injuries sustained by accused- Again , there was no definite evidence as to the place of occurrence- Evidence of I.O. PW-14. showed that after occurrence when he visited hospital, he noticed not only the injured witnesses but also injured accused- From the analysis of the statement of prosecution witnesses PWs 12, 13, various details about the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses as well as the accused spoken to by Dr. PW-3, conduct of I.O. PW-14 in not recording statement of the injured accused who were also present in the same hospital when he visited to record the statement of injured complainant party, it was clear that two groups of people clashed inter se with weapons causing injuries to each other-Hence held that complainant party was the aggressor and in the absence of definite material and explanation from the prosecution side, High Court was right in acquitting all of them-Appeals dismissed. (Paras 9 to 13)
       Facts of the Case :
        Eleven accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of one person and injuries to others by assaulting them with gandasis and lathis. Trial Court convicted accused persons.Appeal thereagainst was Allowed by High Court acquitting all the eleven accused persons of the charges framed against them.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order ofHigh Court acuitting accused persons.
       Findings of the Court :
        Evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as the defence showed that A2,A-3, A-11 also sustained injuries.Among these persons, A-2 sustained grievous injuries by the use of ghandasa. There was no proper explanation by prosecution about injuries sustained by accused. Again , there was no definite evidence as to the place of occurrence. Evidence of I.O. PW-14. showed that after occurrence when he visited hospital, he noticed not only the injured witnesses but also injured accused. From the analysis of the statement of prosecution witnesses PWs 12, 13, various details about the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses as well as the accused spoken to by Dr. PW-3, conduct of I.O. PW-14 in not recording statement of the injured accused who were also present in the same hospital when he visited to record the statement of injured complainant party, it was clear that two groups of people clashed inter se with weapons causing injuries to each other.Hence held that complainant party was the aggressor and in the absence of definite material and explanation from the prosecution side, High Court was right in acquitting all of them.Appeals were dismissed.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1) These appeals are directed against the common judgment and final order dated 01.05.2001 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 647 and 657 of 2000 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 475 of 2000 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals and acquitted all the eleven accused persons of the charges framed against them and dismissed the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant herein.

2) The case of the prosecution is as under:

(a) Four-five days prior to the date of occurrence i.e. 25.10.1992, there was a dispute between Mohinder Singh PW- 13, who is the son of Shambhu (the deceased) and Madan Lal and Sat Pal, the accused, who used to run Kiryana shop in the village, over payment of price of crackers. But, later on, the dispute was settled between them with the intervention of villagers and Mohinder Singh paid an amount to the accused as the price of the crackers.

(b) On 25.10.1992, at about 9.00 p.m., when Mohinder Singh, after having meals, was going to his Garhi (outer house), he found eight persons, namely, Sat Pal, Pala Ram, Madan Lal, Jai Kumar, Ram Prakash, Rajesh, Ram Bhaj and Jai Singh standing there and they were armed with gandasis and lathis. Sat Pal raised a lalkara that Mohinder Singh should be taught a lesson for making less payment for crackers and he gave a gandasi blow on his right leg. Mohinder Singh shouted for help and on hearing the same, Ishwar - his brother came there. Pala Ram gave gandasi blows repeatedly from its reverse side on Ishwar’s chin and jaw and Madan Lal gave two lathi blows on his face and Jai Kumar gave lathi blows on his hands and chest. On hearing the calls for help, Shambhu-the deceased came to the spot. Rajesh and Ram Bhaj, who were standing in front of the house of Chandan came there with lathis and Ram Bhaj gave a lathi blow on the head of Shambhu and Rajesh gave a lathi blow on his legs. In the meantime, Ishwar’s wife - Murti Devi also came there and Naresh and Jai Singh gave lathi blow on Murti Devi.

(c) Ganpat (PW-12)-the complainant (appellant herein), who was standing at a distance of 10 yards from the place of occurrence, shouted “Naa Maro Naa Maro”. Thereafter, Ganpat brought a tractor from his house with the help of his son Shri Pal for taking the injured to the hospital. When they were lifting the injured persons, Mohan Lal gave one gandasi blow on his right arm and Rajesh gave a lathi blow on the back of his right hand palm and Ram Prakash gave a lathi blow on his left shoulder. Thereafter, Shri Pal, Chappa and Satta and other persons came there and rescued them and all the injured persons were taken to Primary Health Centre, Nissing. Dr. Sanjiv Grover, PW-3 examined the injured persons. Ishwar and Shambhu were referred to General Hospital, Karnal. Thereafter, Mohinder Singh and Murti Devi were also referred to the same hospital. Dr. Sanjiv Grover sent the ruqa to the in-charge, Police Station, Nissing on 26.10.1992 at 00:10 a.m. but due to inadvertence he mentioned the time as 12:10 a.m. On receipt of ruqa, ASI Ram Karan - PW-14 went to Primary Health Centre to inquire about the condition of the injured and came to know that the injured persons have been referred to General Hospital, Karnal. Then, on 26.10.1992, at 01:15 p.m., the ASI recorded the statement of Ganpat-the appellant herein in General Hospital, Karnal and a case was registered and a formal FIR was recorded at 2:30 p.m. under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC’). He could not record the statement of Shambhu as he was not fit for making statement. After taking the clothes of the injured persons into possession, he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared rough site plan and lifted blood stained earth. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and the weapons were also recovered.

(d) On 09.11.1992, Shambhu died and the case was converted to that under Sections 148, 302, 323, 324, 325 read with S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 915

2010 (7) Supreme 234SUPREME COURT OF INDIAP. Sathasivam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.Ganpat — Appellant(s)versusState of Haryana & Ors. — RespondentsCriminal Appeal Nos. 279-281 of 2002Decided on : 27-9-2010

IMPORTANT POINT An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so.

Cases Referred (4)

2010 (7) Supreme 234
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Ganpat — Appellant(s)
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 279-281 of 2002
Decided on : 27-9-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so.