Acquittal -No consistence with Medical evidence - Scene of offence not clear - Blood stained Earth not sent for chemical examination - weapons not recovered - The ocular witnesses namely PWs 1 to 3 are interested and inimical witnesses and in their testimonies they have not stated as to how the appellants/accused mentioned above sustained 12 injuries during the occurrence and they are lying on a most material point, and therefore, their evidence is unreliable and further their ocular testimony with respect to the assault is inconsistent with the medical evidence and the weapons of offence were not recovered and situs of the assault was also not fixed and so the prosecution has failed to prove the case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are liable to be set aside.=
The situs of attack is also alleged to be not
established by the prosecution.
In the First
Information Report the complainant PW3 Ram
Lakhan has stated that he and his sons were sitting
in their flour mill and were chatting at about 6.00
a.m. when the assailants came and attacked them.
In the testimony,
PW1 Bali Raj has stated that they
were sitting in front of their house when the assault
took place.
PW2 Moti Lal has testified that the attack
did not occur on flour mill but occurred in the
22
verandah of house of Prabhunath.
PW3 Ram Lakhan
has testified that the place of occurrence is about 50
steps away from the flour mill.
Thus there is
inconsistency about the place of occurrence in their
testimonies and a doubt creeps in.
Though
blood-stained earth was claimed to have been seized
from the occurrence place by the Investigating Officer
PW7 Surender Singh, it was not sent for chemical
examination which could have fixed the situs of the
assault.
In almost all criminal cases the
blood-stained earth found from the place of
occurrence is invariably sent to the chemical
examination and the report along with the earth is
produced in the Court and yet this is one exceptional
case where this procedure was departed from for
reasons best known to the prosecution.
20. We are of the considered view that the prosecution
has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt, and therefore, they are entitled to
be acquitted.23
21. In the result Criminal Appeal No.1881 of 2011 is
allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on
appellant-Ganesh Datt are set aside and he is
acquitted of the charges and he is directed to be set
at liberty unless wanted in connection with any other
case. Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of 2011 in respect
of appellant Jagdish stands abated. As far as other
appellants namely, Sudarshan Verma, Deep Narain
and Rajendra are concerned, the said appeal is
allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on
them are set aside and they are acquitted of the
charges and they are directed to be set at liberty
unless wanted in any other case.
2014 (June .Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41572
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, C. NAGAPPAN
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1881 of 2011
Ganesh Datt .. Appellant(s)
versus
State of Uttarakhand .. Respondent(s)
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1884 OF 2011
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. Both the appeals are preferred against the judgment
and order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.927
of 2001.
2. The appellants 1 to 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of
2011, Sudarshan Verma, Jagdish, Deep Narain and
Rajendra were accused Nos. 1 to 4 and the appellant2
Ganesh Datt in Criminal Appeal No.1881 of 2011 was
accused No.5 in Sessions Trial case No.109 of 1990 on
the file of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital and
were tried for the charges under Sections 147, 148, 302
read with 149, 307 read with 149 and Section 324 read
with 149 IPC, and the Trial Court convicted and
sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment
under Section 302/149 IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for
a period of 7 years under Section 307/149 IPC;
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year under
Section 324/149 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of six months under Section 147 IPC and
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year under
Section 148 IPC. Challenging the conviction and
sentence they preferred Criminal Appeal No.927 of
2001 and the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same they have
preferred the present appeals.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the
prosecution is as follows : PW1 Bali Raj, PW2 Moti Lal
deceased Prabhunath and Raj Bali are sons of PW33
Ram Lakhan. On 26.8.1989 at about 6.00 a.m. they
along with servant Bahadur, were sitting in the
verandah of the house of Prabhunath and at that time
accused persons Sudarshan Varma armed with country
made pistol, Deep Narain armed with gun, Jagdish
armed with axe (Farsa), Rajendra and Ganesh Datt
armed with lathis came there and accused Sudarshan
shouted to kill them today itself and by so saying he
fired at Prabhunath with pistol and accused Deep
Narain fired gunshots at PW2 Motilal and Raj Bali and
accused Jagdish attacked PW2 Motilal with axe on
neck which he defended by left hand resulting in
injuries and accused Rajendra and Ganesh attacked
them with lathis. On the sound of fire and shouting
the villagers came there and accused fled away.
4. Accused Sudarshan who was then the village Pradhan
went to the Police Station Rudrapur and lodged a First
Information Report against Prabhunath, Motilal and
Bali Raj at 7.25 a.m. on 26.8.1989 and a case was
registered as Crime No. 583 of 1989 for the alleged
offences under Sections 307 and 324 IPC. PW3 Ram4
Lakhan took the injured Prabhunath, PW2 Moti Lal and
Raj Bali to the Police Station Rudrapur and lodged a
First Information Report at 8.10 a.m. on the same day
against accused Sudarshan, Jagdish, Deep Narain,
Rajendra and Ganesh Datt, on which a case was
registered as Crime No.583-A for the alleged offences
under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 323 IPC
and the injured were sent to hospital.
5. PW6 Dr. A.K. Rana, Medical Officer in Jawahar Lal
Hospital Rudrapur examined Prabhunath at 9.40 a.m.
on 26.8.1989 in the hospital and found the following
injuries:
“i) An abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm on top of head 12
cm from left ear lobe. Fresh bleeding present.
ii) A contusion 15 cm x 10 cm on left jaw with
multiple punctured wound on whole surface.
Advised X-ray skull. Fresh bleeding present.
Punctured wound size 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm x not
probed (depth) with margins inverted.
iii) A contusion 15 cm x 20 cm on left side of
whole neck with multiple punctured wounds5
measuring 0.25 cm x 0.25cm x not probed
(depth) with margins of wound inverted. Advised
X-ray neck and left shoulder. Fresh bleeding
present.
iv) An incised wound 7 cm x 5 cm x muscle
deep on left upper arm, 4 cm above top of left
elbow. Fresh bleeding present.
v) An incised wound 5 cm x 5 cm bone deep on
tip of left elbow extending upwards. Fresh
bleeding present.
vi) An incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle
deep on left side bone of middle finger. Fresh
bleeding present.”
He opined in his report Exh.A8 that injury No.1
was simple and could have been caused by any hard
object; injury Nos. 4, 5 and 6 could have been caused
by some sharp edged weapon and injury No.2 and 3
were kept under observation and general condition of
the injured was very serious.6
PW6 Dr. A.K. Rana examined PW2 Moti Lal at
9.45 a.m. in the hospital on 26.8.1989 and found the
following injuries:
i) A contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on right side of
forehead at hairline with a puncture wound
0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x not probed (depth) Fresh
bleeding present Advised X-ray skull.
ii) A contusion 4 cm x 3 cm just below left eyelid
with a puncture wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x
not probed (depth) in its middle, wound
margins inverted. Advised X-ray skull. Fresh
bleeding .
iii) Multiple punctured wounds 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm
x not probed (depth) on right side of chest
frontal aspect and left side chest. Fresh
bleeding present. Advised X-ray of chest.
iv) A punctured wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm X not
probed (depth) on right forearm anterior aspect.
Advised X-ray forearm. Fresh bleeding.
v) A punctured wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x not
probed (depth) on right base of thumb, wound7
margins inverted. Fresh bleeding present.
Advised X –ray right hand.
vi) An incised wound 7 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep
on right side forearm on upper and proximal ½
part. Fresh bleeding present”
He opined that injury Nos. 1 to 5 were kept under
observation and they were fresh and injury nos.6 was
simple and could have been caused by a sharp edged
weapon.
PW6 Dr. A.K. Rana examined Raj Bali at 9.50 a.m.
in the hospital and found a contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on
lower side of left eye and opined that the injury was
simple in nature.
6. PW7 Sub-Inspector Surender Singh took up the
investigation and visited Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital
on 26.8.1989 and after coming to know the death of
Prabhunath in the hospital on the same day altered
the offence to one under Section 302 IPC and
examined PW2 Motilal and Rajbali in the hospital on
the same day. He conducted inquest and recorded8
the statement of Panchas and complainant. He gave
the requisition for post-mortem.
7. PW4 Dr. S.M. Pant conducted post-mortem at 2.30
p.m. on 27.8.1989 and found the following injuries:
i) Lacerated wound 2 cm x ½ cm x scalp deep on
the head, 11 cm above left eyebrow.
ii) Multiple abrasions in an area of 30 cm x 10 cm
of sizes 0.25 cm to 0.5 cm from left side of
face, left side of neck and left upper chest. All
injuries painted with some red coloured
medicine.
iii) Contusion in an area 10 cm x 8 cm around left
nipple.
iv) Contusion right side of abdomen 12 cm x 15
cm area. 3 cm right to naval.
v) Stitched wound with two stitches 4 cm long on
the porterior aspect of left upper arm, 1 cm
from elbow joint.
vi) Stitched wound with 3 stitches 5 cm long, 5
cm above injury No.(v)9
vii) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x muscle deep on left
middle finger proximal phalanx painted with
medicine.
viii) Lacerated wound 1 cm x muscle deep on the
middle phalanx of index finger.”
He opined in the autopsy report that the deceased
had died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of
ante mortem injuries.
8. PW7 Sub-Inspector Surender Singh went to the
occurrence place and prepared site-plan and seized
blood-stained soil and sample soil in the presence of
witnesses. He also seized 10 bullets of 12 bore from
the occurrence place out of which 4 were emptied
and 6 were live, by preparing a Memo. He examined
the wife of the deceased Smt. Raj Kumari on
27.8.1989 and recorded her statement. Thereafter
PW5 Inspector Vijender Kumar Bhardwaj continued
the investigation and recorded the statements of
other witnesses including the seizure witnesses and
completed the investigation, filed charge sheet
against the accused and it was taken on file in10
Sessions Trial Case No.109 of 1990 on the file of Vth
Additional Sessions Judge.
9. In the cross case, final report came to be filed and it
was taken on file in Sessions Trial No.177 of 1990 on
the file of the same Court. Both the cases were tried
by the same Court. In the case of Sessions Trial
No.109 of 1990, prosecution witnesses PWs 1 to 7
were examined and documents in Exh.A1 to A17
were marked and wife of the deceased Raj Kumari
was examined as CW-1. The trial court in Sessions
Trial No.109 of 1990 found all the five accused guilty
of the charges framed against them and sentenced
them as mentioned above. The appeal preferred
came to be dismissed and that is now appealed
against. At the same time the trial court in the cross
case in Sessions Trial No.177 of 1990 found that
Sudarshan Verma and his associates were
aggressors and acquitted accused Motilal and Bali
Raj of the charges framed against them. Challenging
the acquittal the State preferred Government Appeal
No.2017 of 2001 and the complainant Sudarshan11
Verma independently challenged the acquittal by
preferring Criminal Revision No.92 of 2001 and the
High Court after hearing all the matters together
dismissed both the Government appeal as well as
Criminal Revision, by a common judgment and it has
become final since there was no further challenge.
10. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondent State submits
on instructions that 2nd appellant Jagdish in Criminal
Appeal No.1884 of 2011 died on 9.1.2012 while
undergoing the sentence in jail. Submission is
recorded. The appeal insofar as he is concerned
stands abated.
11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants strenuously contended that appellant
Sudarshan Verma suffered 19 injuries and appellant
Deep Narain also suffered injuries in the occurrence.
The ocular witnesses namely PWs 1 to 3 are
interested and inimical witnesses and in their
testimonies they have not stated as to how the
appellants/accused mentioned above sustained12
injuries during the occurrence and they are lying on
a most material point, and therefore, their evidence is
unreliable and further their ocular testimony with
respect to the assault is inconsistent with the
medical evidence and the weapons of offence were not
recovered and situs of the assault was also not fixed
and so the prosecution has failed to prove the case
against appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants
are liable to be set aside.
12. Per contra learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondent State contended that
the injuries on the person of appellants/accused are
not very grievous in nature and the ocular evidence is
clear, cogent and non explanation of the injuries on
the appellants/accused ipso-facto cannot be the
basis to discard the prosecution case and the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants
are sustainable.
13. The prosecution case is that the appellants armed
with dangerous weapons came and attacked PW3
13
Ram Lakhan and his sons resulting in the death of
Prabhunath and injuries to PW2 Moti Lal. The
prosecution examined PW1 Bali Raj, PW2 Moti Lal
and their father PW3 Ram Lakhan as having
witnessed the occurrence. They have testified that on
26.8.1989 at about 6.00 a.m., when they were sitting
in front of their house accused persons Sudarshan
armed with country made pistol, Deep Narain with a
gun, Jagdish with axe, Rajendra and Ganesh Datt
with lathies, came there and Sudarshan shouted to
kill them today by so saying he and Deep Narain fired
shots at Prabhunath and PW2 Moti Lal and Jagdish
tried to attack on the neck of PW2 Moti Lal with axe
which he defended by his left hand resulting in
injuries and Rajendra and Ganesh Datt attacked
them with lathis. On hearing the sound of firing and
shouting villagers gathered there and accused fled
away. PW3 Ram Lakhan took his injured sons
Prabhunath and PW2 Moti Lal to Police Station
Rudrapur and lodged complaint and the injured were
admitted in Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital. PW614
Dr.A.K. Rana examined injured Prabhunath at 9.40
a.m. on 26.8.1989 and found 3 incised wounds on
the left arm, 2 contusions with multiple puncture
wounds on neck and left shoulder and an abrasion
on the top of head. He directed to take x-ray of head,
neck and left shoulder and found the general
condition of the injured very serious. He opined that
the incised wounds were simple and could have been
caused by any sharp edged weapon and the abrasion
was simple and could have been caused by any hard
object. He has not expressed any opinion with regard
to contusions since they were kept under
observation. He also examined PW2 Moti Lal at 9.45
a.m. in the same hospital and found 2 contusions; on
the forehead and below left eye-lid, punctured
wounds on chest and right arm and an incised
wound on right fore-arm and opined that the injuries
were simple in nature. Prabhunath died on 26.8.1989
itself in the hospital. PW 4 Dr. S.M. Pant conducted
autopsy and found the same injuries mentioned
above and opined that the deceased had died of15
shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem
injuries and further observed that the death has
occurred a day before and there was no fire arm
injury. Exh. A-8 is the autopsy report. From the
above it is clear that Prabhunath died of injuries
sustained during the occurrence.
14. The eye-witnesses namely PWs 1 to 3 and CW-1
Smt. Raj Kumari, widow of deceased Prabhunath
have testified that accused Sudarshan and accused
Deep Narain fired shots with pistol and gun
respectively at Prabhunath during the occurrence
resulting in injuries but as per the medical evidence
there was no gun shot injury found on any part of the
body of Prabhunath. Thus in short, the deceased
Prabhunath is concerned the ocular evidence is
totally inconsistent with the medical evidence with
respect to assault by accused Sudarshan and Deep
Narain. If this matter is false, there is no guarantee
that the other assault deposed to by the
eye-witnesses was also not false.16
15. As per the ocular testimony the weapons used in
the occurrence are country made pistol, gun, axe and
lathis. In his testimony PW7 Sub-Inspector Surender
Singh has stated that he went to the occurrence
place during investigation and seized 10 bullets of 12
bore from the spot out of which 4 were empty and 6
were live, under Exh. A-16 Memo. Initial investigation
was done by PW7 Sub-Inspector Surender Singh and
thereafter it was continued and concluded by PW5
Inspector Vijender Kumar Bhardwaj. They have not
taken any steps to recover the weapons alleged to
have been used in the occurrence. No scientific
method of investigation was pressed into service. We
did not find any explanation in the testimonies of the
Investigating Officers in this regard. The lethargic
attitude of the officers conducting investigation is
deplorable.
16. It is contended that the appellant/accused
Sudarshan sustained extensive injuries and
appellant Deep Narain was also injured during the
occurrence. In the cross-case Dr. J.P. Arora has17
testified that he examined Sudarshan at 7.30 a.m.
on 26.8.1989 at Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital,
Rudrapur and found the following injuries on his
body :
“i) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 x scalp deep on left
side of head parietal region 11 cm left from ear.
Blood oozing present. Intervening tissues clean
cut.
ii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.25 cm x scalp deep on
left side head, 7.5 cm above left ear. Blood
oozing present. Intervening tissues clean cut.
iii) Incised wound 5 cm x 2 x scalp deep on right
side of forehead, ½ cm above right eyebrow.
Intervening tissues clean cut. Blood oozing
present.
iv) Incised wound 4 cm x ½ x skin deep on right
check, 3 cm in front of left ear. Intervening
tissues clean cut. Blood oozing present.
v) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.2 x scalp deep on left
side of head, 6 cm above right eyebrow.
vi) Abrated contusion ½ cm x ½ cm on right side
of face, 4 cm away from right eye outer angle.
vii) Abrated contusion 5 cm x ½ cm on front of neck
left side, 3 cm above right clavicle.
viii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on
front of left little finger, 4 cm above root of
finger. Intervening tissues clean cur. Blood
oozing present.
ix) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on
front of left ring finger, 3.5 cm above base.18
Intervening tissues clean cut. Blood oozing
present.
x) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep on
front of tip of left ring finger. Also blood oozing.
Intervening tissues clean cut.
xi) Incised wound 3.75 cm x 0.25 cm x bone deep
on ground of left middle finger, oblique 4.5 cm
above base of finger. Intervening tissues clean
cut. Blood oozing present.
xii) Incised wound 4.5 cm x ½ cm x bone deep on
front of left index finger. Oblique. Intervening
tissues clean cut. Blood oozing present.
xiii) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on
outer side of left hand, 2 cm above index finger,
intervening tissues clean cut.
xiv) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep –
inner side left thumb, root, intervening tissues
clean cut. Blood oozing present.
xv) Two lacerated wound each size 2 cm x ¾ cm x
depth went to deeper tissue and ½ cm x ½ cm x
depth went to deeper tissue, ½ cm apart from
each other. Blood oozing. On right scapular
region upper part, in area of 8 cm x 3 cm.
xvi) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on right scapular region,
3.5 cm inner to injury No. (xv)
xvii) Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on outside of right
shoulder
xviii) Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on back of right arm, 8
cm below armpit.
xix) Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on right side of chest on
back side and below the hair of 4.5 cm19
He has opined that all the injuries were fresh and injury
Nos. 1,2,3,5, 8 to 14 and 15 to 19, were kept under
observation and rest of the injuries were simple. He has
also testified that he examined Deep Narain at 9.15 a.m.
on the same day at the hospital and found lacerated
wound 1.25 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep transverse over right
eye brow. Afterwards he has expressed opinion that injury
Nos.1 to 5 and 8 to 14 found on Sudarshan could have
been caused by sword.
17. In the trial, in examination-in-chief PW1 Bali Raj,
did not state anything about the injuries on
Sudarshan and Deep Narain. In the
cross-examination he has testified that Sudarshan
Verma and Deep Narain did not suffer any injury
during the occurrence and further stated that 16-17
days prior to occurrence Sudarshan Verma suffered
injuries in a jeep accident. This testimony cannot be
true for the reason that Dr. Arora has examined him
in the hospital on the occurrence day and has found
injuries which were fresh on his body. PW2 Moti Lal
in his examination-in-chief did not state anything
20
about the injuries on the accused. In the
cross-examination he has stated that during the
occurrence accused Sudarshan Verma snatched the
axe from the hands of accused Jagdish and his hand
was injured during snatching process and an injury
was also caused near the eyes by the axe. He has
also stated that he did not see whether any injury
was caused to Deep Narain during the occurrence. It
is his further testimony that he is mentioning above
for the first time before the Court. It is needless to
say that no reliance can be placed on such a
testimony. In the same way PW3 Ram Lakhan has
not stated anything about the injuries of the accused
in his testimony-in-chief. In the cross-examination he
has stated that he did not see accused Sudarshan
suffering any injury during the occurrence.
18. In Babulal Bhagwan Khandare and another vs.
State of Maharashtra [(2005) 10 SCC 404] this
Court held:
“Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by
the accused at about the time of occurrence or21
in the course of altercation is a very important
circumstance.”
The eye-witnesses who deny the presence of injuries on
the person of the accused are lying on most material point,
and therefore, their evidence is unreliable. It assumes
much greater importance where the evidence consists of
interested or inimical witnesses. In the present case
admittedly there was enmity between the accused family
and the deceased family and PWs 1 to 3 are interested as
well as inimical witnesses and their denial of injuries on
the person of accused, makes their evidence unreliable.
19. The situs of attack is also alleged to be not
established by the prosecution. In the First
Information Report the complainant PW3 Ram
Lakhan has stated that he and his sons were sitting
in their flour mill and were chatting at about 6.00
a.m. when the assailants came and attacked them.
In the testimony, PW1 Bali Raj has stated that they
were sitting in front of their house when the assault
took place. PW2 Moti Lal has testified that the attack
did not occur on flour mill but occurred in the22
verandah of house of Prabhunath. PW3 Ram Lakhan
has testified that the place of occurrence is about 50
steps away from the flour mill. Thus there is
inconsistency about the place of occurrence in their
testimonies and a doubt creeps in. Though
blood-stained earth was claimed to have been seized
from the occurrence place by the Investigating Officer
PW7 Surender Singh, it was not sent for chemical
examination which could have fixed the situs of the
assault. In almost all criminal cases the
blood-stained earth found from the place of
occurrence is invariably sent to the chemical
examination and the report along with the earth is
produced in the Court and yet this is one exceptional
case where this procedure was departed from for
reasons best known to the prosecution.
20. We are of the considered view that the prosecution
has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt, and therefore, they are entitled to
be acquitted.23
21. In the result Criminal Appeal No.1881 of 2011 is
allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on
appellant-Ganesh Datt are set aside and he is
acquitted of the charges and he is directed to be set
at liberty unless wanted in connection with any other
case. Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of 2011 in respect
of appellant Jagdish stands abated. As far as other
appellants namely, Sudarshan Verma, Deep Narain
and Rajendra are concerned, the said appeal is
allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on
them are set aside and they are acquitted of the
charges and they are directed to be set at liberty
unless wanted in any other case.
……………………………J.
(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
……………………………J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
June 11, 201424
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.3 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1881/2011
GANESH DATT Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents(s)
WITH
Crl.A. No. 1884/2011
HEARD BY HON'BLE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND HON'BLE
C.NAGAPPAN, JJ.
Date: 11/06/2014 These appeals were called on for judgment
today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh,Adv.(Not
present)
Mr. Kaushik Poddar, Adv.(Not present)
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AAG
for Mr. J.K. Bhatia,Adv.(Not present)
for Mr. Abhishek Atrey,Adv.(Not Present)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish
Singh Khehar and His Lordship.
For the reasons recorded in the Reportable
judgment, which is placed on the file, Criminal Appeal No.
1881 of 2011 is allowed and the conviction and sentence
imposed on appellant-Ganesh Datt are set aside and he is
acquitted of the charges and he is directed to be set at
liberty unless wanted in connection with any other case.25
Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of 2011 in respect of appellant
Jagdish stands abated. As far as other appellants namely,
Sudarshan Verma, Deep Narain and Rajendra are concerned, the
said appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence
imposed on them are set aside and they are acquitted of the
charges and they are directed to be set at liberty unless
wanted in any other case.
(PRAVEEN KUMAR CHAWLA) (PHOOLAN WATI ARORA)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
The situs of attack is also alleged to be not
established by the prosecution.
In the First
Information Report the complainant PW3 Ram
Lakhan has stated that he and his sons were sitting
in their flour mill and were chatting at about 6.00
a.m. when the assailants came and attacked them.
In the testimony,
PW1 Bali Raj has stated that they
were sitting in front of their house when the assault
took place.
PW2 Moti Lal has testified that the attack
did not occur on flour mill but occurred in the
22
verandah of house of Prabhunath.
PW3 Ram Lakhan
has testified that the place of occurrence is about 50
steps away from the flour mill.
Thus there is
inconsistency about the place of occurrence in their
testimonies and a doubt creeps in.
Though
blood-stained earth was claimed to have been seized
from the occurrence place by the Investigating Officer
PW7 Surender Singh, it was not sent for chemical
examination which could have fixed the situs of the
assault.
In almost all criminal cases the
blood-stained earth found from the place of
occurrence is invariably sent to the chemical
examination and the report along with the earth is
produced in the Court and yet this is one exceptional
case where this procedure was departed from for
reasons best known to the prosecution.
20. We are of the considered view that the prosecution
has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt, and therefore, they are entitled to
be acquitted.23
21. In the result Criminal Appeal No.1881 of 2011 is
allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on
appellant-Ganesh Datt are set aside and he is
acquitted of the charges and he is directed to be set
at liberty unless wanted in connection with any other
case. Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of 2011 in respect
of appellant Jagdish stands abated. As far as other
appellants namely, Sudarshan Verma, Deep Narain
and Rajendra are concerned, the said appeal is
allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on
them are set aside and they are acquitted of the
charges and they are directed to be set at liberty
unless wanted in any other case.
2014 (June .Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41572
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, C. NAGAPPAN
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1881 of 2011
Ganesh Datt .. Appellant(s)
versus
State of Uttarakhand .. Respondent(s)
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1884 OF 2011
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. Both the appeals are preferred against the judgment
and order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.927
of 2001.
2. The appellants 1 to 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of
2011, Sudarshan Verma, Jagdish, Deep Narain and
Rajendra were accused Nos. 1 to 4 and the appellant2
Ganesh Datt in Criminal Appeal No.1881 of 2011 was
accused No.5 in Sessions Trial case No.109 of 1990 on
the file of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital and
were tried for the charges under Sections 147, 148, 302
read with 149, 307 read with 149 and Section 324 read
with 149 IPC, and the Trial Court convicted and
sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment
under Section 302/149 IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for
a period of 7 years under Section 307/149 IPC;
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year under
Section 324/149 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of six months under Section 147 IPC and
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year under
Section 148 IPC. Challenging the conviction and
sentence they preferred Criminal Appeal No.927 of
2001 and the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same they have
preferred the present appeals.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the
prosecution is as follows : PW1 Bali Raj, PW2 Moti Lal
deceased Prabhunath and Raj Bali are sons of PW33
Ram Lakhan. On 26.8.1989 at about 6.00 a.m. they
along with servant Bahadur, were sitting in the
verandah of the house of Prabhunath and at that time
accused persons Sudarshan Varma armed with country
made pistol, Deep Narain armed with gun, Jagdish
armed with axe (Farsa), Rajendra and Ganesh Datt
armed with lathis came there and accused Sudarshan
shouted to kill them today itself and by so saying he
fired at Prabhunath with pistol and accused Deep
Narain fired gunshots at PW2 Motilal and Raj Bali and
accused Jagdish attacked PW2 Motilal with axe on
neck which he defended by left hand resulting in
injuries and accused Rajendra and Ganesh attacked
them with lathis. On the sound of fire and shouting
the villagers came there and accused fled away.
4. Accused Sudarshan who was then the village Pradhan
went to the Police Station Rudrapur and lodged a First
Information Report against Prabhunath, Motilal and
Bali Raj at 7.25 a.m. on 26.8.1989 and a case was
registered as Crime No. 583 of 1989 for the alleged
offences under Sections 307 and 324 IPC. PW3 Ram4
Lakhan took the injured Prabhunath, PW2 Moti Lal and
Raj Bali to the Police Station Rudrapur and lodged a
First Information Report at 8.10 a.m. on the same day
against accused Sudarshan, Jagdish, Deep Narain,
Rajendra and Ganesh Datt, on which a case was
registered as Crime No.583-A for the alleged offences
under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 323 IPC
and the injured were sent to hospital.
5. PW6 Dr. A.K. Rana, Medical Officer in Jawahar Lal
Hospital Rudrapur examined Prabhunath at 9.40 a.m.
on 26.8.1989 in the hospital and found the following
injuries:
“i) An abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm on top of head 12
cm from left ear lobe. Fresh bleeding present.
ii) A contusion 15 cm x 10 cm on left jaw with
multiple punctured wound on whole surface.
Advised X-ray skull. Fresh bleeding present.
Punctured wound size 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm x not
probed (depth) with margins inverted.
iii) A contusion 15 cm x 20 cm on left side of
whole neck with multiple punctured wounds5
measuring 0.25 cm x 0.25cm x not probed
(depth) with margins of wound inverted. Advised
X-ray neck and left shoulder. Fresh bleeding
present.
iv) An incised wound 7 cm x 5 cm x muscle
deep on left upper arm, 4 cm above top of left
elbow. Fresh bleeding present.
v) An incised wound 5 cm x 5 cm bone deep on
tip of left elbow extending upwards. Fresh
bleeding present.
vi) An incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle
deep on left side bone of middle finger. Fresh
bleeding present.”
He opined in his report Exh.A8 that injury No.1
was simple and could have been caused by any hard
object; injury Nos. 4, 5 and 6 could have been caused
by some sharp edged weapon and injury No.2 and 3
were kept under observation and general condition of
the injured was very serious.6
PW6 Dr. A.K. Rana examined PW2 Moti Lal at
9.45 a.m. in the hospital on 26.8.1989 and found the
following injuries:
i) A contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on right side of
forehead at hairline with a puncture wound
0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x not probed (depth) Fresh
bleeding present Advised X-ray skull.
ii) A contusion 4 cm x 3 cm just below left eyelid
with a puncture wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x
not probed (depth) in its middle, wound
margins inverted. Advised X-ray skull. Fresh
bleeding .
iii) Multiple punctured wounds 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm
x not probed (depth) on right side of chest
frontal aspect and left side chest. Fresh
bleeding present. Advised X-ray of chest.
iv) A punctured wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm X not
probed (depth) on right forearm anterior aspect.
Advised X-ray forearm. Fresh bleeding.
v) A punctured wound 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm x not
probed (depth) on right base of thumb, wound7
margins inverted. Fresh bleeding present.
Advised X –ray right hand.
vi) An incised wound 7 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep
on right side forearm on upper and proximal ½
part. Fresh bleeding present”
He opined that injury Nos. 1 to 5 were kept under
observation and they were fresh and injury nos.6 was
simple and could have been caused by a sharp edged
weapon.
PW6 Dr. A.K. Rana examined Raj Bali at 9.50 a.m.
in the hospital and found a contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on
lower side of left eye and opined that the injury was
simple in nature.
6. PW7 Sub-Inspector Surender Singh took up the
investigation and visited Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital
on 26.8.1989 and after coming to know the death of
Prabhunath in the hospital on the same day altered
the offence to one under Section 302 IPC and
examined PW2 Motilal and Rajbali in the hospital on
the same day. He conducted inquest and recorded8
the statement of Panchas and complainant. He gave
the requisition for post-mortem.
7. PW4 Dr. S.M. Pant conducted post-mortem at 2.30
p.m. on 27.8.1989 and found the following injuries:
i) Lacerated wound 2 cm x ½ cm x scalp deep on
the head, 11 cm above left eyebrow.
ii) Multiple abrasions in an area of 30 cm x 10 cm
of sizes 0.25 cm to 0.5 cm from left side of
face, left side of neck and left upper chest. All
injuries painted with some red coloured
medicine.
iii) Contusion in an area 10 cm x 8 cm around left
nipple.
iv) Contusion right side of abdomen 12 cm x 15
cm area. 3 cm right to naval.
v) Stitched wound with two stitches 4 cm long on
the porterior aspect of left upper arm, 1 cm
from elbow joint.
vi) Stitched wound with 3 stitches 5 cm long, 5
cm above injury No.(v)9
vii) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x muscle deep on left
middle finger proximal phalanx painted with
medicine.
viii) Lacerated wound 1 cm x muscle deep on the
middle phalanx of index finger.”
He opined in the autopsy report that the deceased
had died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of
ante mortem injuries.
8. PW7 Sub-Inspector Surender Singh went to the
occurrence place and prepared site-plan and seized
blood-stained soil and sample soil in the presence of
witnesses. He also seized 10 bullets of 12 bore from
the occurrence place out of which 4 were emptied
and 6 were live, by preparing a Memo. He examined
the wife of the deceased Smt. Raj Kumari on
27.8.1989 and recorded her statement. Thereafter
PW5 Inspector Vijender Kumar Bhardwaj continued
the investigation and recorded the statements of
other witnesses including the seizure witnesses and
completed the investigation, filed charge sheet
against the accused and it was taken on file in10
Sessions Trial Case No.109 of 1990 on the file of Vth
Additional Sessions Judge.
9. In the cross case, final report came to be filed and it
was taken on file in Sessions Trial No.177 of 1990 on
the file of the same Court. Both the cases were tried
by the same Court. In the case of Sessions Trial
No.109 of 1990, prosecution witnesses PWs 1 to 7
were examined and documents in Exh.A1 to A17
were marked and wife of the deceased Raj Kumari
was examined as CW-1. The trial court in Sessions
Trial No.109 of 1990 found all the five accused guilty
of the charges framed against them and sentenced
them as mentioned above. The appeal preferred
came to be dismissed and that is now appealed
against. At the same time the trial court in the cross
case in Sessions Trial No.177 of 1990 found that
Sudarshan Verma and his associates were
aggressors and acquitted accused Motilal and Bali
Raj of the charges framed against them. Challenging
the acquittal the State preferred Government Appeal
No.2017 of 2001 and the complainant Sudarshan11
Verma independently challenged the acquittal by
preferring Criminal Revision No.92 of 2001 and the
High Court after hearing all the matters together
dismissed both the Government appeal as well as
Criminal Revision, by a common judgment and it has
become final since there was no further challenge.
10. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondent State submits
on instructions that 2nd appellant Jagdish in Criminal
Appeal No.1884 of 2011 died on 9.1.2012 while
undergoing the sentence in jail. Submission is
recorded. The appeal insofar as he is concerned
stands abated.
11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants strenuously contended that appellant
Sudarshan Verma suffered 19 injuries and appellant
Deep Narain also suffered injuries in the occurrence.
The ocular witnesses namely PWs 1 to 3 are
interested and inimical witnesses and in their
testimonies they have not stated as to how the
appellants/accused mentioned above sustained12
injuries during the occurrence and they are lying on
a most material point, and therefore, their evidence is
unreliable and further their ocular testimony with
respect to the assault is inconsistent with the
medical evidence and the weapons of offence were not
recovered and situs of the assault was also not fixed
and so the prosecution has failed to prove the case
against appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants
are liable to be set aside.
12. Per contra learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondent State contended that
the injuries on the person of appellants/accused are
not very grievous in nature and the ocular evidence is
clear, cogent and non explanation of the injuries on
the appellants/accused ipso-facto cannot be the
basis to discard the prosecution case and the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants
are sustainable.
13. The prosecution case is that the appellants armed
with dangerous weapons came and attacked PW3
13
Ram Lakhan and his sons resulting in the death of
Prabhunath and injuries to PW2 Moti Lal. The
prosecution examined PW1 Bali Raj, PW2 Moti Lal
and their father PW3 Ram Lakhan as having
witnessed the occurrence. They have testified that on
26.8.1989 at about 6.00 a.m., when they were sitting
in front of their house accused persons Sudarshan
armed with country made pistol, Deep Narain with a
gun, Jagdish with axe, Rajendra and Ganesh Datt
with lathies, came there and Sudarshan shouted to
kill them today by so saying he and Deep Narain fired
shots at Prabhunath and PW2 Moti Lal and Jagdish
tried to attack on the neck of PW2 Moti Lal with axe
which he defended by his left hand resulting in
injuries and Rajendra and Ganesh Datt attacked
them with lathis. On hearing the sound of firing and
shouting villagers gathered there and accused fled
away. PW3 Ram Lakhan took his injured sons
Prabhunath and PW2 Moti Lal to Police Station
Rudrapur and lodged complaint and the injured were
admitted in Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital. PW614
Dr.A.K. Rana examined injured Prabhunath at 9.40
a.m. on 26.8.1989 and found 3 incised wounds on
the left arm, 2 contusions with multiple puncture
wounds on neck and left shoulder and an abrasion
on the top of head. He directed to take x-ray of head,
neck and left shoulder and found the general
condition of the injured very serious. He opined that
the incised wounds were simple and could have been
caused by any sharp edged weapon and the abrasion
was simple and could have been caused by any hard
object. He has not expressed any opinion with regard
to contusions since they were kept under
observation. He also examined PW2 Moti Lal at 9.45
a.m. in the same hospital and found 2 contusions; on
the forehead and below left eye-lid, punctured
wounds on chest and right arm and an incised
wound on right fore-arm and opined that the injuries
were simple in nature. Prabhunath died on 26.8.1989
itself in the hospital. PW 4 Dr. S.M. Pant conducted
autopsy and found the same injuries mentioned
above and opined that the deceased had died of15
shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem
injuries and further observed that the death has
occurred a day before and there was no fire arm
injury. Exh. A-8 is the autopsy report. From the
above it is clear that Prabhunath died of injuries
sustained during the occurrence.
14. The eye-witnesses namely PWs 1 to 3 and CW-1
Smt. Raj Kumari, widow of deceased Prabhunath
have testified that accused Sudarshan and accused
Deep Narain fired shots with pistol and gun
respectively at Prabhunath during the occurrence
resulting in injuries but as per the medical evidence
there was no gun shot injury found on any part of the
body of Prabhunath. Thus in short, the deceased
Prabhunath is concerned the ocular evidence is
totally inconsistent with the medical evidence with
respect to assault by accused Sudarshan and Deep
Narain. If this matter is false, there is no guarantee
that the other assault deposed to by the
eye-witnesses was also not false.16
15. As per the ocular testimony the weapons used in
the occurrence are country made pistol, gun, axe and
lathis. In his testimony PW7 Sub-Inspector Surender
Singh has stated that he went to the occurrence
place during investigation and seized 10 bullets of 12
bore from the spot out of which 4 were empty and 6
were live, under Exh. A-16 Memo. Initial investigation
was done by PW7 Sub-Inspector Surender Singh and
thereafter it was continued and concluded by PW5
Inspector Vijender Kumar Bhardwaj. They have not
taken any steps to recover the weapons alleged to
have been used in the occurrence. No scientific
method of investigation was pressed into service. We
did not find any explanation in the testimonies of the
Investigating Officers in this regard. The lethargic
attitude of the officers conducting investigation is
deplorable.
16. It is contended that the appellant/accused
Sudarshan sustained extensive injuries and
appellant Deep Narain was also injured during the
occurrence. In the cross-case Dr. J.P. Arora has17
testified that he examined Sudarshan at 7.30 a.m.
on 26.8.1989 at Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital,
Rudrapur and found the following injuries on his
body :
“i) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 x scalp deep on left
side of head parietal region 11 cm left from ear.
Blood oozing present. Intervening tissues clean
cut.
ii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.25 cm x scalp deep on
left side head, 7.5 cm above left ear. Blood
oozing present. Intervening tissues clean cut.
iii) Incised wound 5 cm x 2 x scalp deep on right
side of forehead, ½ cm above right eyebrow.
Intervening tissues clean cut. Blood oozing
present.
iv) Incised wound 4 cm x ½ x skin deep on right
check, 3 cm in front of left ear. Intervening
tissues clean cut. Blood oozing present.
v) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.2 x scalp deep on left
side of head, 6 cm above right eyebrow.
vi) Abrated contusion ½ cm x ½ cm on right side
of face, 4 cm away from right eye outer angle.
vii) Abrated contusion 5 cm x ½ cm on front of neck
left side, 3 cm above right clavicle.
viii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on
front of left little finger, 4 cm above root of
finger. Intervening tissues clean cur. Blood
oozing present.
ix) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on
front of left ring finger, 3.5 cm above base.18
Intervening tissues clean cut. Blood oozing
present.
x) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep on
front of tip of left ring finger. Also blood oozing.
Intervening tissues clean cut.
xi) Incised wound 3.75 cm x 0.25 cm x bone deep
on ground of left middle finger, oblique 4.5 cm
above base of finger. Intervening tissues clean
cut. Blood oozing present.
xii) Incised wound 4.5 cm x ½ cm x bone deep on
front of left index finger. Oblique. Intervening
tissues clean cut. Blood oozing present.
xiii) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on
outer side of left hand, 2 cm above index finger,
intervening tissues clean cut.
xiv) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep –
inner side left thumb, root, intervening tissues
clean cut. Blood oozing present.
xv) Two lacerated wound each size 2 cm x ¾ cm x
depth went to deeper tissue and ½ cm x ½ cm x
depth went to deeper tissue, ½ cm apart from
each other. Blood oozing. On right scapular
region upper part, in area of 8 cm x 3 cm.
xvi) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on right scapular region,
3.5 cm inner to injury No. (xv)
xvii) Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on outside of right
shoulder
xviii) Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on back of right arm, 8
cm below armpit.
xix) Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on right side of chest on
back side and below the hair of 4.5 cm19
He has opined that all the injuries were fresh and injury
Nos. 1,2,3,5, 8 to 14 and 15 to 19, were kept under
observation and rest of the injuries were simple. He has
also testified that he examined Deep Narain at 9.15 a.m.
on the same day at the hospital and found lacerated
wound 1.25 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep transverse over right
eye brow. Afterwards he has expressed opinion that injury
Nos.1 to 5 and 8 to 14 found on Sudarshan could have
been caused by sword.
17. In the trial, in examination-in-chief PW1 Bali Raj,
did not state anything about the injuries on
Sudarshan and Deep Narain. In the
cross-examination he has testified that Sudarshan
Verma and Deep Narain did not suffer any injury
during the occurrence and further stated that 16-17
days prior to occurrence Sudarshan Verma suffered
injuries in a jeep accident. This testimony cannot be
true for the reason that Dr. Arora has examined him
in the hospital on the occurrence day and has found
injuries which were fresh on his body. PW2 Moti Lal
in his examination-in-chief did not state anything
20
about the injuries on the accused. In the
cross-examination he has stated that during the
occurrence accused Sudarshan Verma snatched the
axe from the hands of accused Jagdish and his hand
was injured during snatching process and an injury
was also caused near the eyes by the axe. He has
also stated that he did not see whether any injury
was caused to Deep Narain during the occurrence. It
is his further testimony that he is mentioning above
for the first time before the Court. It is needless to
say that no reliance can be placed on such a
testimony. In the same way PW3 Ram Lakhan has
not stated anything about the injuries of the accused
in his testimony-in-chief. In the cross-examination he
has stated that he did not see accused Sudarshan
suffering any injury during the occurrence.
18. In Babulal Bhagwan Khandare and another vs.
State of Maharashtra [(2005) 10 SCC 404] this
Court held:
“Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by
the accused at about the time of occurrence or21
in the course of altercation is a very important
circumstance.”
The eye-witnesses who deny the presence of injuries on
the person of the accused are lying on most material point,
and therefore, their evidence is unreliable. It assumes
much greater importance where the evidence consists of
interested or inimical witnesses. In the present case
admittedly there was enmity between the accused family
and the deceased family and PWs 1 to 3 are interested as
well as inimical witnesses and their denial of injuries on
the person of accused, makes their evidence unreliable.
19. The situs of attack is also alleged to be not
established by the prosecution. In the First
Information Report the complainant PW3 Ram
Lakhan has stated that he and his sons were sitting
in their flour mill and were chatting at about 6.00
a.m. when the assailants came and attacked them.
In the testimony, PW1 Bali Raj has stated that they
were sitting in front of their house when the assault
took place. PW2 Moti Lal has testified that the attack
did not occur on flour mill but occurred in the22
verandah of house of Prabhunath. PW3 Ram Lakhan
has testified that the place of occurrence is about 50
steps away from the flour mill. Thus there is
inconsistency about the place of occurrence in their
testimonies and a doubt creeps in. Though
blood-stained earth was claimed to have been seized
from the occurrence place by the Investigating Officer
PW7 Surender Singh, it was not sent for chemical
examination which could have fixed the situs of the
assault. In almost all criminal cases the
blood-stained earth found from the place of
occurrence is invariably sent to the chemical
examination and the report along with the earth is
produced in the Court and yet this is one exceptional
case where this procedure was departed from for
reasons best known to the prosecution.
20. We are of the considered view that the prosecution
has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt, and therefore, they are entitled to
be acquitted.23
21. In the result Criminal Appeal No.1881 of 2011 is
allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on
appellant-Ganesh Datt are set aside and he is
acquitted of the charges and he is directed to be set
at liberty unless wanted in connection with any other
case. Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of 2011 in respect
of appellant Jagdish stands abated. As far as other
appellants namely, Sudarshan Verma, Deep Narain
and Rajendra are concerned, the said appeal is
allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on
them are set aside and they are acquitted of the
charges and they are directed to be set at liberty
unless wanted in any other case.
……………………………J.
(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
……………………………J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
June 11, 201424
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.3 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1881/2011
GANESH DATT Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents(s)
WITH
Crl.A. No. 1884/2011
HEARD BY HON'BLE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND HON'BLE
C.NAGAPPAN, JJ.
Date: 11/06/2014 These appeals were called on for judgment
today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh,Adv.(Not
present)
Mr. Kaushik Poddar, Adv.(Not present)
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AAG
for Mr. J.K. Bhatia,Adv.(Not present)
for Mr. Abhishek Atrey,Adv.(Not Present)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish
Singh Khehar and His Lordship.
For the reasons recorded in the Reportable
judgment, which is placed on the file, Criminal Appeal No.
1881 of 2011 is allowed and the conviction and sentence
imposed on appellant-Ganesh Datt are set aside and he is
acquitted of the charges and he is directed to be set at
liberty unless wanted in connection with any other case.25
Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of 2011 in respect of appellant
Jagdish stands abated. As far as other appellants namely,
Sudarshan Verma, Deep Narain and Rajendra are concerned, the
said appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence
imposed on them are set aside and they are acquitted of the
charges and they are directed to be set at liberty unless
wanted in any other case.
(PRAVEEN KUMAR CHAWLA) (PHOOLAN WATI ARORA)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
