AMAR SINGH versus BALWINDER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 31-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AMAR SINGH 
v. 
BALWINDER SINGH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 31, 2003 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860-Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307-
Conviction-High Court acquitting .the accused-On appeal held ord,er of 
C High Court perverse and illegal since it failed to consider the testimony of 
eye-witnesses and reasons given for discarding the prosecution case are not 
sustainable in law-Hence acquittal set aside. 
+ 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
D 
Section 386-Power of Appellate Court-Appeal from conviction-Case 
based on eye witness account-High Court failing to consider testimony of 
eye-witnesses and acquitting accused-leads to infraction of Section 386. 
Section I 7 4-lnquest report-Non-mentioning of facts about 
occurrence-Effect of-Held, such omission does not affect the prosecution 
E case since the purpose of the report is to report regarding the apparent cause 
of death. 
Criminal Trial: 
FIR-Inordinate delay in lodging-EvidentiQ/y value of-Held: It 
F depends on facts and circumstances of the case whether such delay casts 
doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case-On facts, delay satisfactorily 
explained, thus no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution 
case. 
Investigating Officer-Failure or omission in investigation-Effect of-
G When prosecution case is jillly established by testimony of eye-witnesses and 
corroborated by medical evidence-Held, such failure does not render 
prosecution case doubtful. 
Examination of all eye-witnesses-Necessity of-Discussed-Evidence 
H Act, 1872-Section 134. 
754 
AMAR SINGH v. BAL WINDER SINGH 
755 
According to the prosecution, accused party armed with guns fired A 
.•• sltots ,at appellant, his sons and two others, and ran away. It is alleged 
that there was dispute going on between accused and appellant. Thereafter, 
injured persons were taken to hospital. Among them one of the son of 
appellant succumbed to his injuries and one sustained injuries dangerous 
to his life. Sub-Inspector recorded the statement of appellant-informant. B 
FIR was lodged the next day. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the 
accused for the offence committed. Ho\o,'ever, High Court acquitted them. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Order of acquittal passed by the High Court is wholly C 
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. Hence the acquittal order 
is set aside. 1769-G, H; 770-AI 
D 
2. Under Section 386 Cr.P.C. it is mandatory for the appellate 
court to peruse the testimony of the eye \Vitnesses. In a case based upon 
direct eye-witness account the testimony of eye-\\'itnesses is of paramount 
importance and if the appellate court reverses the finding recorded by 
trial court and acquits the accused \Vithout considering or examining the 
testimony of the eye-witnesses, it will be a clear infraction of Section 386 E 
Cr.P.C. In the i11stant case trial court placed reliance on the testimony of 
eye witnesses and convicted the accused. However, High Court failed to 
consider the testimony of eye witnesses and acquitted the accused, which 
was violation of Section 386 Cr. P.C. 
Biswanath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Ors., AIR 119871 SC 
1155 and State ofU.P. v. Sahai and Ors., AIR (1981) SC 1442, referred to. 
F 
3.1. There is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR 
would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. It necessarily 
depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether there has G 
been any such delay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt about the 
veracity of the prosecution case and for this a host of circumstances like 
the condition of the first informant, the nature of injuries sustained, the 
number of victims, the efforts made to provide medical aid to them, the 
distance of the hospital and the police station, etc. have to be taken into 
consideration. There is no mathematical formula by which an inference H 
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] I S.C.R. 
A 
may be drawn either way merely on account of delay in lodging of the 
FIR. 1764-B, Cl 
3.2. In the instant case the period which elapsed in lodging the FIR 
of the incident has been fully explained from the evidence on record and 
no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution merely on the 
B 
ground that the FIR was lodge

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.