1998 INSC 0199
                                                     Mange Ram

                                                           Vs

                                            State, Delhi Administration

                                         (G. T. Nanavati, V. N. Khare JJ)

                                                      26.02.1998

                                                     JUDGMENT

NANAVATI J

1.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 declarations 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 has 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 Mange
Ram and his wife put kerosene oil on him and set him on 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 no reason to differ from that 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.

2.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 neighbours 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 should have been held
that he was falsely involved by the appellant O.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 was in full senses and was able to speak clearly It clearly appears that P.W 8 being a
neighbour was trying to help the appellant by deposing like that Therefore, no reliance can be
placed upon his evidence.

3.As we do not find any substance in this appeal it is dismissed.The appellants were released on bail
during the pendency of this appeal.Their bail is cancelled and they are ordered to surrender to
custody to serve out the remaining part of their sentence