Case Brief: Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder & Ors.

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement: 31st January, 2003
Bench: Justice S. Rajendra Babu & Justice G.P. Mathur
Facts of the Case: The complainant, along with his sons, was coming towards his outer house after having unloaded the trolley of wheat straw. When they were at a distance of about 5-6 karams from the, they saw that accused armed with SBBL guns and accused armed with DBBL guns were standing there. He entered the Baithak and fired a shot towards them through the iron gauze of the window which hit the complaintant fired a shot which hit him on his face and left side of the neck and right hand and a second shot which hit Amar Singh. Thereafter the accused ran away. Amar Singh then carried Lakha Singh to his outer house and all the injured persons also reached there. The injured persons were then taken to bus stand, Sangrur, in the tractor trolley of Major Singh, where they hired two taxies on which they proceeded to Christian Medical College, Ludhiana where they were admitted at about 11.30 p.m. on the same night. Lakha Singh succumbed to his injuries.. Information was then sent from the hospital to S.H.O. Division No.3, Ludhiana and thereafter Sardara Singh, S.I. Police Station, Sangrur came there and recorded the statement of Amar Singh. This was sent to PS, Sangrur through Joga Singh, Constable and a formal FIR was recorded at 9.20 p.m. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the four accused-respondents and in due course they were committed to the Court of Sessions.
Judgement of the Case: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution having examined three eye-witnesses, in our opinion, there was no necessity of multiplying the number of witnesses and no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution merely on the ground that Kashmira Singh or Pritam Singh were not examined. If the incident had not taken place as suggested by the prosecution but had happened in a different manner, there was no impediment in the way of the accused-respondents to examine the aforesaid persons as defence witnesses, but they did not chose to do so. Having given our careful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of the High Court is wholly perverse and illegal inasmuch as it completely failed to consider the testimony of the eye-witnesses and the reasons given for discarding the prosecution case are also unsustainable in law. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 26.9.1991 of the High Court is set aside and that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur is restored. The accused-respondents shall surrender forthwith to undergo the sentences imposed upon them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur shall take immediate steps to take the accusedrespondents in custody and for realisation of fine.