REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 279-281 OF 2002

Ganpat      .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.              .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

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:

1

(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  

2

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  

3

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.    

4

(d) On  09.11.1992,  Shambhu  died  and  the  case  was  

converted to that under Sections 148, 302, 323, 324, 325 read  

with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as  

“IPC”).   On 12.03.1993, challan was filed by the police in the  

Court, mentioning only the names of four accused out of the  

11 accused,  whose names were mentioned in  the  FIR.   On  

09.04.1993,  Ganpat  (PW-12),  the  appellant  herein  filed  an  

application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code  

(hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) for summoning the other  

seven accused.  The trial Court, vide order dated 12.05.1993,  

allowed  the  application  and  summoned  the  other  seven  

accused  persons  to  face  trial  along  with  the  four  accused.  

Vide  order  dated  22.03.1994,  the  trial  Court  ordered  for  

framing  of  charges  against  all  the  11  accused  persons  for  

offences under Sections 148, 302, 325, 324, 323  read with  

Section 149 IPC.   

(e) The prosecution examined 15 witnesses.  After recording  

the  evidence,  the  trial  Judge  convicted  Pala  Ram,  Sat  Pal  

Madan Lal, Ram Prakash, Rajesh, Ram Bhaj and Jai Kumar  

for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them to  

5

undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine  

of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, each of them  

was  ordered  to  undergo  further  rigorous  imprisonment  for  

three months.  They were further convicted under Section 302  

read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous  

imprisonment for life.  They were also convicted under Section  

325 read with Section 149 IPC and were sentenced to undergo  

rigorous  imprisonment  for  two  years  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  

Rs.1000/- each.  In default of payment of fine, each of them  

was  ordered  to  undergo  further  rigorous  imprisonment  for  

three  months.   All  of  them  were  further  convicted  under  

Section  324  read  with  Section  149  IPC  and  sentenced  to  

undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  six  months  and  further  

they were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149  

IPC  and  each  of  them  was  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment  for  four  months.   Mohan  Lal  was  convicted  

under  Section  324  IPC  and  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for six months, Naresh, Ramesh Chand and Jai  

Singh  were  convicted  under  Section  323  IPC  and  were  

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.  

6

The substantive  sentences of  imprisonment  were ordered to  

run concurrently.   

(f) Against the abovesaid order, Jai Singh, Ramesh, Naresh  

and Mohan Lal filed Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 2000 and Pala  

Ram, Sat Pal,  Madan Lal,  Ram Prakash,  Rajesh,  Ram Bhaj  

and Jai  Kumar  filed  Criminal  Appeal  No.  657 of  2000 and  

Ganpat-  the  complainant  and  the  appellant  herein  filed  

Criminal  Revision Petition No.  475 of  2001 before  the  High  

Court of Punjab & Haryana for not holding guilty four of the  

eleven  accused,  namely,  Jai  Singh,  Ramesh,  Naresh  and  

Mohan Lal under Sections 302/149 IPC.  Vide judgment dated  

01.05.2001, the High Court allowed the appeals and acquitted  

all  the  eleven  accused  persons  and  dismissed  the  criminal  

revision petition filed by the appellant herein.  Challenging the  

judgment of the High Court,  the appellant/complainant has  

preferred these appeals by way of special leave petitions.

3) Heard learned counsel  for the appellant  as well  as the  

respondents.

4) The  only  point  for  consideration  in  these  appeals  is  

whether there is any ground for interference against the order  

7

of acquittal by the High Court.  This Court has repeatedly laid  

down that the first appellate court and the High Court while  

dealing with an appeal is entitled and obliged as well to scan  

through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence and  

arrive a conclusion one way or the other.   

5) The following principles have to be kept in mind by the  

appellate  court  while  dealing  with  appeals,  particularly,  

against an order of acquittal:

(i) There is no limitation on the part of the appellate 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  

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 and adequate reasons may set  

aside the judgment of acquittal.

(iv) An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when  

there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so.  If  

8

the order is “clearly unreasonable”, 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 ballistic experts, etc. the appellate  

court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial  court  

depending on the materials placed. [Vide Madan Lal vs. State  

of J & K, (1997) 7 SCC 677,  Ghurey Lal vs.  State of U.P.,  

(2008)  10 SCC 450,  Chandra Mohan Tiwari vs.  State  of  

M.P., (1992)  2  SCC  105,  Jaswant  Singh vs.  State  of  

Haryana, (2000) 4 SCC 484].

6) With  these  principles,  let  us  examine  whether  

interference  is  required  in  the  impugned  order  of  the  High  

Court acquitting all the eleven accused.  It is not in dispute  

that the incident occurred on the night of 25.10.1992.  Among  

several  witnesses  examined  on  the  side  of  the  prosecution,  

material witnesses relied on by the trial court and the High  

Court are:  

9

Ganpat  PW-12/complainant/appellant  herein,  Mohinder  

Singh  PW-13,  Investigation  Officer  PW-14  and  Dr.  Sanjiv  

Grover PW-3, who treated injured witnesses/accused.

7) Before  the  trial  court  as  well  as  the  High  Court,  the  

accused took up the plea that they were innocent and there  

was danger to their  life  and the complainant party was the  

aggressor.  We have already adverted to the relevant fact that  

there was dispute between the accused and the complainant  

party regarding the payment of price of crackers.  A Panchayat  

was convened and the amount of the price of crackers was  

fixed  by  the  Panchayat  and  still  Mohinder  Singh  was  

demanding the price and he himself  used force and caused  

harm to the accused party.  We perused the evidence of PWs  

12 and 13.  It is true that both of them sustained injuries in  

the  clash.   According  to  them,  the  accused  had  inflicted  

injuries on them and blamed them for being the aggressor and  

having caused the death of Shambhu and for inflicting injuries  

to others.  A perusal of the oral testimony of Ganpat PW-12  

who was confronted with his statement made before the police  

wherein he had not mentioned the names of  seven persons  

10

who  is  said  to  have  participated  in  the  commission  of  the  

crime.  The only explanation for omission of those names was  

that of nervousness.  It is useful to refer that the very same  

person who made a complaint to the police mentioned all the  

names of the accused persons assigned specific role for each  

one of them.  

8)  We also verified the statement of Mohinder Singh PW-13  

wherein he claimed that Ganpat PW-12 reached the spot when  

he and Ishwar had already received the injuries.   This also  

makes  the  presence  of  PW-12  at  the  spot  to  be  doubtful.  

Though PW-13 has denied the suggestion that he was under  

the influence of alcohol at the time of occurrence the same was  

falsified  by  the  version  of  Dr.  Sanjiv  Grover  PW-3.   In  his  

statement, he has noted that the injured Mohinder Singh was  

under the influence of alcohol at the time of first arrival.

9) It is also clear from the evidence of prosecution witnesses  

as  well  as  the  defence  that  Satpal  A2,  Madan Lal  A-3,  Jai  

Kumar 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 prosecution about the injuries  

11

sustained  by  the  accused.   Further,  there  is  no  definite  

evidence as to the place of occurrence.  It is also relevant to  

note  the  statement  of  accused  Satpal  A-2  recorded  under  

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.  After denying several questions, as  

regard to the last question about the alleged incident as set  

out by the prosecution, he explained before the Addl. Sessions  

Judge on 15.07.2000.  The relevant question and answer is as  

follows:-

“Q.20. Have you to say anything else?

Ans. The facts of this case are that on the day of occurrence  Mohinder PW came at the house of Jai Kumar in drunken  condition and started abusing him.  I and Madan were also  present  there  being  his  nephew  and  also  on  account  of  Diwali festival.  Jai Kumar and his wife stopped them from  abusing and thereafter  Mohinder  PW went back and after  sometime  he  came  along  with  Shambu deceased,  Ganpat  and Ishwar Singh.  Mohinder PW gave a gandasi blow on my  head and I fell down on the ground.  Thereafter Jai Kumar  and his wife Kitabo Devi came forward to save me and then  all  of  them started causing injuries  to  them as well  as to  Madan Lal and me.  Jai Kumar etc. also caused injuries to  the complainant in their self defence.  Initially I, Pala Ram,  Madan Lal  and Jai  Kumar  were  challaned and remaining  accused  were  found  to  be  innocent  because  all  the  eye  witnesses  including  the  complainant  Ganpat  and  injured  witnesses related to deceased, had stated in their statement  under section 161 Cr.P.C. that only four persons i.e. myself,  Pala Ram, Madan and Jai Kumar were responsible for the  death of Shambu and remaining accused were not named by  them at all.  The matter was placed before Panchayat also in  which  the  complainant  party  had  admitted  that  seven  persons have been wrongly named.  In fact the complainant  party  was  aggressor  and  they  entered  the  house  of  Jai  Kumar and caused injuries to me, Madan, Jai Kumar and  Kitabo Devi.”

12

10) If  we  consider  the  above  assertion  by  A-2  and  the  

evidence  of  PWs 12,  13 as  well  as  Dr.  Sanjiv  Grover  PW-3  

about the injuries sustained by the persons belonging to the  

complainant’s and accused party, the conclusion of the High  

Court that the complainant party was the aggressor cannot be  

ignored.  

11) It is also relevant to note the evidence of I.O. PW-14.  His  

evidence shows that after the occurrence when he visited the  

hospital, he noticed not only the injured witnesses but also the  

injured accused.  He admitted that Madan Lal A-3 and Satpal  

A-2 have sustained injuries and he also admitted that he had  

not  recorded  their  statement  as  to  in  what  manner  they  

sustained injuries.  Though he answered that they refused to  

make  statement,  admittedly  he  had  not  taken  any  action  

against them for refusing to make statements.  

12) 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, categorical assertion of Satpal A-2 in  

respect of question No. 20 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,  

13

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 is clear that two groups of people clashed inter se with  

weapons  causing  injuries  to  each  other,  we  hold  that  the  

complainant party was the aggressor and in the absence of  

definite material  and explanation from the prosecution side,  

the High Court is right in acquitting all of them.   

13) In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in  

the appeals.  On the other hand, we are in entire agreement  

with  the  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the  High  Court.  

Consequently, all the appeals are dismissed.                        

...…………………………………J.  (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

....…………………………………J.   (R.M. LODHA)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 27, 2010.

14