TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms acquittal in payment dispute case, stresses evidence review</h1> <h3>Ganpat Versus State of Haryana and Ors.</h3> Ganpat Versus State of Haryana and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the High Court's acquittal of the accused.2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility.3. Determination of the aggressor in the incident.4. Procedural conduct of the Investigation Officer.Summary:1. Legitimacy of the High Court's Acquittal of the Accused:The appeals challenge the High Court's judgment dated 01.05.2001, which acquitted all eleven accused and dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant. The Supreme Court examined whether there were grounds for interfering with the High Court's order of acquittal. The principles for appellate courts in dealing with appeals against acquittal include the ability to review evidence and conclusions of both facts and law, and interference is warranted only for 'compelling and substantial reasons.'2. Evaluation of Evidence and Witness Credibility:The prosecution's case involved a dispute over the payment of crackers, leading to a violent altercation on 25.10.1992. Key witnesses included Ganpat (PW-12), Mohinder Singh (PW-13), the Investigation Officer (PW-14), and Dr. Sanjiv Grover (PW-3). The trial court convicted the accused based on their testimonies. However, the High Court found inconsistencies, such as Ganpat's omission of seven accused names in his initial police statement and Mohinder Singh's intoxication, which cast doubt on their credibility.3. Determination of the Aggressor in the Incident:The accused claimed self-defense, asserting that the complainant party was the aggressor. Evidence showed that both parties sustained injuries, with some accused suffering grievous harm. The High Court concluded that the complainant party initiated the conflict, supported by the lack of prosecution explanation for the accused's injuries and the statement of Satpal (A-2) under Section 313 Cr.P.C., detailing the complainant's aggressive actions.4. Procedural Conduct of the Investigation Officer:The Investigation Officer (PW-14) failed to record the statements of injured accused persons present in the hospital, which was a significant procedural lapse. This omission weakened the prosecution's case and supported the High Court's finding that the complainant party was the aggressor.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and agreed with the High Court's conclusion, affirming the acquittal of all accused. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment.
TaxTMI 