Full Judgment Text
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.