Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
AMRIK SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/1998
BENCH:
G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
NANAVATI,J.
The appellant was tried alongwith three other accused
for causing the death of manna Singh. The trial court
convicted him under Section 302 IPC and acquitted the other
accused. The High Court confirmed his conviction as it found
that the evidence of the three eye-witness, PW 2 Swaran
Singh, PW 3 - Raj Singh and PW 4 - Amar Singh is quite
consistent and their evidence proves that the appellant had
given a barchha blow to Manna singh on his chest which
proved to be fatal. the High Court after appreciating the
evidence also recorded a finding that their evidence did not
require any corroboration.
However, it was contended by the learned counsel for
the appellant that the three eye-witnesses had not
specifically stated before the police when their statement
were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that Amrik Singh
had given the fatal blow to the deceased. Merely because the
witnesses have not specifically stated which blow was given
by which accused their evidence cannot be discarded if it is
found to be otherwise reliable. the eye-witnesses had
received injuries during this very incident; and therefore,
their presence at the time of the incident has to be
believed. they have specifically stated that after reaching
the spot on hearing cries, they had prevented the accused
from giving further blows to Manna Singh. With respect to
this part of their evidence, they were not contradicted by
their police statements. Therefore, there can be no doubt
regarding their having seen the blows given by the appellant
merely because they had not specifically referred to them in
their police statements. The courts below have thought it
fit to believe the evidence against Amrik Singh and we see
no reason to differ from the finding recorded in that
behalf.
As we find no substance in this appeal, it is
dismissed.
The appellant was released on bail during the pendency
of this appeal. His bail is cancelled and he is ordered to
surrender to custody to serve out the remaining part of the
sentence.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2