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