Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P 2008, 10 SCC 450

GHUREY LAL V. STATE OF U.P

Whether the injuries caused to Brij Raj Singh be caused by the same shot that killed the deceased?
Whether the trial court judgement was perverse and High Court was justified in setting aside the same?

When two possible and plausible explanations co-exist, the explanation favorable to the accused should be adopted.

On 14.03.1979, the deceased and others had taken the customary gur (Jaggery) during the Holi festival.
On their way home, they crossed the accused’s house who began to verbally abuse the deceased. He had a shot gun, fired it, killing the deceased and causing injuries to the Brij Rai Singh (one of the witnesses) with pellets. The accused then fled from the scene.
The accused was charged for murder of the deceased and attempting to murder Brij Raj Singh. He denied the charges and asked to be tried.
The trial court examined the report of the Ballistic expert who was of the opinion that the injuries to Brij Raj Singh were from a different shot than the one that killed the deceased. Therefore, the trial court concluded that both the injuries were not possible by a single firearm and that two weapons were used.
The trial court believed the accused cannot be convicted for the charges framed against him and was entitled to get a benefit of doubt as some serious infirmities were found in the prosecution version and was virtually left with no choice. The State appealed before the High Court.
The High Court concluded that the Trial Court’s judgement was unsustainable and was of the opinion that both their injuries were caused from the same weapon in a single shot. It convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The accused appealed to this court.

The Supreme Court is clearly of the opinion that-
The deceased died of a bullet injury and Brij Raj Singh received Pellet injuries. Two shots were fired from two different firearms, hence, disagreeing with the High Court.
The trial court carefully scrutinized the entire evidence and documents on record and arrived at the correct conclusion. The view taken by them was plausible and certainly possible. While the court took great pain in discussing all aspects and to record its opinion on every material point, the learned judges of the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court without any substantial reasons in support of its conclusion. The reasoning given by them for overturning the judgment was wholly unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of law.
The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed and the judgment passed by the High Court was set aside.