Ram & Anr Vs. The State, Delhi
Administration  INSC 129 (26 February 1998)
Nanavati, V.N. Khare Nanavati. J.
appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for causing
death of Ranbir Singh.
deceased was the son-in-law of appellant No.1 Mange Ram, and husband of
appellant No.2 Somwati. Both the courts below believed the dying decelerations
made by the deceased before the Investigating Officer and Dr. Tiwari, and they
have been made the basis of his conviction. We have gone through the evidence
of Dr. Tiwari who was the first person to record the dying declaration. He was
stated that when he inquired from the patient how he had received burn injuries
he had stated that at about 9.10. p.m. he was in his in-laws house and his
father-in-law Manger Ram and his wife put kerosene oil on him and set him of
fire. The defence was not able to take out anything in his cross examination
which could create any doubt regarding truthfulness of his evidence. A.S.I. Harpal
Singh (P.W. 24) who had gone to the hospital on receiving information about
admission of Ranbir Singh in the hospital has stated that he recorded the F.I.R
of Ranbir Singh at about 11.45
p.m. Therein also Ranbir
Singh has stated that his father-in-law and his wife had set him on fire. Both
these dying declarations have been found reliable and consistent by the courts
below and we see on reason to differ from the finding. The learned counsel for
the appellant was not able to suggest any good reason to disbelieve the
evidence of Dr. Tiwari and A.S.I. Harpal Singh.
however, drew our attention to the statement, made by appellant No.1 Mange Ram
when he was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein
he has stated that he was not residing in House No.80, which though belonged to
him was in occupation of his daughter and son- in-law and that he had gone to
that house after he was informed about the incident. He also drew our attention
to the evidence of P.W. 8 Hari Singh who has also stated that Mange Ram had
come there after the neighbors had collected.
then submitted that as the version given by Mange Ram was supported by a
prosecution witness it ought to have been accepted and it should have been held
that he was falsely involved by the appellant. P.W. 8 has stated that when he
had gone inside the house he had seen Ranbir Singh lying on a cot and groaning
in pain. He was under the influence of liquor. But the evidence of doctor does
not show that Ranbir Singh was under the influence of liquor. On the contrary
his evidence is that, when he was brought to the hospital Ranbir Singh was
under the influence of liquor. On the contrary his evidence is that, when he
was brought to the hospital, Ranbir Singh has in full senses and was able to
speak clearly. It clearly appears that P.W. 8 being a neighbor was trying to
help the appellant by deposing like that.
no reliance can be placed upon his evidence.
do not find any substance in this appeal it is dismissed. The appellants were
released on bail during the pedency of this appeal. Their bail is cancelled and
they are ordered to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining part of