Anmol Singh vs Asharfi Ram & Ors
- CitationAIRONLINE 1997 SC 544
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an eyewitness's evidence undergoes material changes between the First Information Report and testimony in court — such as naming additional assailants not mentioned in the FIR or providing a different version of the manner of assault — and those changes are inconsistent with medical evidence, the High Court's rejection of such evidence as unreliable does not constitute an error in the appreciation of evidence. The burden lies upon the party seeking conviction to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the assault; where the sole eyewitness's account is found to be materially inconsistent between the FIR and court testimony, and inconsistent with medical evidence, acquittal of the accused against whom such unreliable testimony is the only evidence is justified and will not be disturbed on appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Hon'ble 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 J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
NANAVATI, J.
Anmol 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.
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 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.
The Bail Bonds are cancelled.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free