Mange Ram and anr. Vs. the State, Delhi Administration

.....was the chief minister, a warrant of arrest was issued against shri karpoori thakur for his arrest and detention. it has been suggested that shri thakur had grudge against the second respondent. viewed against this background, and on the unsatisfactory factual details of the case, accepting the appeal and ordering retrial would not advance either the interests of justice or public interest. [796b-e] 4.2 there were two confessional statements of haidari in this case one on 4.11.1976 and another on 24.1.1978. in the former he did not implicate respondent no.2 but he did it in the next one. the second statement at best is the confes- sional statement of a co-accused which normally will not inspire confidence, in any court. it is also a statement an accomplice turned approver and hence of a very little evidentiary value. when supreme court exercises its juris- diction while considering an order giving consent on an application under s.321, consistent with the declared policy of the court not to embark upon evidence, request for an order for retrial on this legally weak and infirm evidence should be rejected. [795a-e] as to the accusation of forgery, taking the entire evidence against the appellant it cannot be held that he has committed forgery under s.463 or an offence under s.466. even though there is overwriting or pasting or interpolation or change of digits, there is no evidence at all to show that this paper went out of the chief minister's office or that any one was unduly favoured or that any one secured undue advantage by use of such overwriting. [796a-b] per bhagwati (on behalf of himself and g.l. oza j.) (minority view). (per contra) the review bench did exercise the power of review and set aside the order made by the original bench. when the review bench used the expression "i ....... admit the review" and directed rehearing of the appeal, it must by necessary implication be held to have allowed the review petition and set aside the order of the..........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.3. 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 it should have been held that he was falsely 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 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.4. 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.