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

PETITIONER: MANGE RAM & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE, DELHI ADMINISTRATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/02/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI. J.      The appellants  have been  convicted under  Section 302 read with 34 IPC for causing death of Ranbir Singh.      The 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.      He, 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. He 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

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

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. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon his evidence.      As we  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 their sentence.