1. Appeal against acquittal of co-accused in a case involving the death of two individuals resulting from an assault. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1531
1997(10) Supreme 571
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T. Nanavati and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Anmol Singh -Appellant
versus
Asharfi Ram & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 1985
Decided on 26-11-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mrs. K. Sharada Devi, Advocate.
For Respondent for the State : Raju Goburdhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Praveen Swarup, Prashant Choudhary, Pramod Swarup, & D. Goburdhan, Advocates.
The court held that material improvements in the testimony of a sole eye-witness, coupled with inconsistencies between the FIR and court evidence and contradictions with medical evidence, justify the acquittal of the accused as the charges are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL-Two respondents were convicted by trial Court with third accused-High Court confirmed conviction of third accused alone but acquitted respondents-PW 10 was the only eye witness in the case-His version in FIR was different from version given in Court-He made material improvements-High Court found his evidence not consistent with medical evidence-No infirmity in appreciation of evidence or reasons given by High Court. (Paras 2 and 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that co-accused should be convicted based on the eye-witness testimony regarding the assault on the deceased. (Para 2 )
3. The sole eye-witness made material improvements in court testimony compared to the FIR, and evidence was inconsistent with medical records. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Conviction cannot be sustained when the sole eye-witness's testimony contains material improvements and is inconsistent with medical evidence. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed and bail bonds cancelled. (Para 3 )
6. How does the court treat material improvements in the testimony of a sole eye-witness?
The court may reject the evidence if the witness makes material improvements in court compared to the version provided in the FIR, rendering the testimony unbelievable. (Para 3 )
7. What is the impact of inconsistency between eye-witness testimony and medical evidence?
If the eye-witness's account of the manner of assault is inconsistent with the medical evidence on record, the court may find that the assault was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 2 )
JUDGMENT
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 Singh and Rup Narain.
2. 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 truely 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.
3. 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.
Appeal dismissed.
**********
00022
