Anmol Singh Vs. Asharfi Ram & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 1995.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.1.1985 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1976)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.1.1985 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1976)
Petitioner: Anmol Singh
Respondent: Asharfi Ram & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 1995.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.1.1985 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1976)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.1.1985 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1976)
Judges: G.T.NANAVATI & B.N.KIRPAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 26, 1997
Appearances:
Mrs. S.K.Sharada Devi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Raju Goburdhan, Advocate for Respondent for the State.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, Mr. Prashant Choudhary, Mr. Pramod Swarup and Mr. D. Goburdhan, Advocates for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code
Acquittal by High Court of two accused while confirming convic-tion of G – Held agreeing with finding of High Court that G. had taken part in assault but not others – Further held that where the only eye-witness had named only three persons in FIR but added certain other persons in his evidence, and his evidence was not believed, it cannot he said that there was any infirmity in appreciation of evidence or the reasons given – Appeal dismissed.
Held:
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.(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J.:
1. Anmol Singh @ Anirudh Narain Singh, the original informant, has filed this appeal against acquittal of the respondent, Ashar-fi 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 Singh and Rup Narain.
2. 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 truely 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.
3. As 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. His 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 evi-dence. 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.
4. The Bail Bonds are cancelled.
1. Anmol Singh @ Anirudh Narain Singh, the original informant, has filed this appeal against acquittal of the respondent, Ashar-fi 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 Singh and Rup Narain.
2. 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 truely 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.
3. As 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. His 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 evi-dence. 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.
4. The Bail Bonds are cancelled.
