http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: ANMOL SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ASHARFI RAM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/11/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, B.N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:                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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.