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

PETITIONER: MOHAR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/04/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                     with CRl.A.NO.624/91                       J U D G M E N T Nanavati, J.      Both these  appeals are  filed against the judgment and order passed  by the Rajasthan High Court in DB (Crl) Appeal No.12/89. Criminal  Appeal No.623/91 is filed by the brother of the  deceased and  Criminal Appeal  No.624/91 is filed by the State.      Respondents -  Ranveer, Bhadar  Ram, Chet Ram, Het Ram, Mohan Singh and Om Prakash were convicted by the trial court for the  murder of Duni Ram. The conviction was based mainly upon the  evidence of  the eye-witness  - PW 1- Mohar Singh, brother of  the deceased.  The other evidence relied upon by the prosecution was of corroborative nature. The trial court also relied  upon the  dying declaration stated to have been made by the deceased before his wife - PW 7 - Gomti.      The High Court on reappreciation of evidence found that the evidence  of PW  1  was  not  reliable  as  regards  the identity of the accused. The High Court has pointed out that PW 1  immediately on  his return  to the  village, after the incident and  sister-in-law that  Duni  Ram  was  beaten  by ‘Bhanbhus’. It  may be  stated that ‘Bhanbhu’ is a sub-caste of Jats.  As PW  1 had not given names of the assailants but described them  as ‘Bhanbhus’,  the High  Court held that in all probabilities  PW 1 had not identified the assailants of Duni Ram.  Another  reason  given  by  the  High  Court  for doubting the  version of PW 1 is that the incident had taken place at  about 8.30  p.m. It  was a dark night. The reasons given by  the High Court appear to be correct. PW 1 has also admitted that  he could  see the  assailants only  when they were at  a distance  of  about  10  paces.  Admittedly,  the assault took  place about  30 to 40 paces away from where he was standing and therefore he stated that he could not state whether any  of the  blows given  to Duni  Ram had caused an injury. That  would indicate  that it was quite dark at that time  and   the  witness  was  not  able  to  recognise  the assailants and  therefore after  reaching  the  village,  he merely described  the assailants  at  ‘Bhanbbus’.  The  High court has  also pointed out that no reliance could be placed on the  FIR which  contains  the  names  of  the  assailants

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

because PW  1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the FIR was  taken down after the Inspector visited the site and they were then taken to the police station.      As regards  the dying  declaration stated  to have been made by  the deceased  to his  wife,  it  appears  that  the deceased could  not have  made such  a dying  declaration in view of the number of injuries received by him. The evidence of Gomti  - PW  7 is  that when  she reached  the  place  of incident, her  husband - Duni Ram was in a position to speak and when  she enquired, he gave the names of the assailants. However, she  admitted that immediately after saying so, her husband had  became unconscious. No other witness has spoken about this  dying declaration.  The High Court was therefore right in not placing reliance upon the dying declaration.      As there  was no  other evidence,  the High  Court  was right in  acquitting the  accused. The  order  of  acquittal passed by the High Court does not call for any interference.      The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.