Singh Vs. Asharfi Ram & Ors  INSC 863 (26 November 1997)
NANAVATI, B.N. KIRPAL
26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:
Mr.Justice G.T. Nanavati Hon'ble Mr.Justice B.N. Kirpal Mrs. K.Sharada Devi,
Adv. for the appellant Raju Goburdhan, Adv. for Respondent for the state
Praveen Swarup, Prashant Choudhary, Pramod Swarup, and D.Goburdhan, Advs. for
the Respondent Nos. 1 & s
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
Singh @ Anirudh Narain Singh, the Original informant, has filed this appeal
against acquittal of the respondents, Asharfi Ram and Rup Narain. Both of them
were convicted along with accused Ganga Singh for causing death of Chedi Singh
and Amrit Singh. The High Court confirmed the conviction of Ganga Singh but
acquitted Anmol sing and Rup Narain., It is contended by the learned counsel
for the appellant that the courts below, having accepted the evidence of PW-10,
as regards the assault made on his father, Chedi Singh, ought to have convicted
Asharfi Ram and Rup Narain also along with Ganga Singh as all the three had
assaulted his father together and caused his death. The High Court considered
the evidence of PW-10 and held that he has not truly stated the manner in which
Amrit Singh and his father were assaulted. The High Court also held that his
evidence was not consistent with the medical evidence on record. We, therefore,
agree with the finding recorded by the High Court that Ganga Singh had taken
part in the assault on Chedi Singh but it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt
that Asharfi Ram and Rup Narain also had assaulted his father and Amrit Singh.
rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant and the State, Anmol
Singh, PW-10, is the only eye-witness in this case. We find that in the FIR, he
had named only three persons as the assailants, even though he had also stated
that there was a mob of about 50-60 persons.
version in the FIR was different from the version given by him in the court.
Even though, in the FIR, he did not name the assailants of Amrit Singh and Janardhan,
he named them specifically while giving his evidence. Thus, this only
eye-witness had made material improvements in his evidence. If, for this
reason, his evidence has not been believed by the High Court, it cannot be said
that the High Court has not correctly appreciated his evidence. As we do not
find any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence or the reasons given by the
High Court, the appeal is dismissed.
Bail Bonds are cancelled.