Supreme Court overturns High Court judgment, reinstates conviction. Accused to surrender for sentence.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment, deeming it "wholly perverse and illegal." The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision and reinstating the conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The accused were directed to surrender immediately to serve their sentences, with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur instructed to take prompt action for their custody and fine collection. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, criticizing the High Court for overlooking crucial evidence and relying on unsustainable grounds for its decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in lodging the FIR.
2. Non-examination of certain witnesses.
3. Alleged tainted investigation.
4. Consideration of the ocular testimony and medical evidence.
5. Details in the inquest report.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Lodging the FIR:
The High Court doubted the prosecution case due to the FIR being recorded at 9:20 PM on 24.5.1987, despite the incident occurring at 7:00 PM on 23.5.1987. The Supreme Court found this view incorrect, noting that the injured were first rushed to the hospital to save their lives, which justified the delay. The Court emphasized that "there is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful." The sequence of events, including the serious injuries and the efforts to provide medical aid, sufficiently explained the delay.

2. Non-examination of Certain Witnesses:
The High Court criticized the prosecution for not examining injured witnesses Kashmira Singh and Pritam Singh, and one Ramesh. The Supreme Court countered this by stating that the prosecution had examined three injured witnesses, which was sufficient. It reiterated that "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact" (Section 134 of the Evidence Act). The non-examination of these witnesses did not undermine the prosecution's case, especially since the omitted witnesses were reportedly won over by the accused.

3. Alleged Tainted Investigation:
The High Court identified three investigative lapses: not taking the wire gauze from the window, not sending firearms and empties for forensic comparison, and omissions in the Daily Diary Register (DDR). The Supreme Court found these points unsubstantial. It noted that the wire gauze had no bearing on the case, and while sending firearms for forensic analysis would have been better, the testimony of the injured eyewitnesses was more crucial. The Court emphasized that defective investigation should not lead to acquittal if the prosecution's case is otherwise established.

4. Consideration of the Ocular Testimony and Medical Evidence:
The High Court failed to consider the testimony of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence. The Supreme Court highlighted that the testimony of injured witnesses PW4 Amar Singh, PW7 Bhan Singh, and PW8 Gurbachan Singh was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court noted that "in a case based upon direct eye-witness account the testimony of the eye-witnesses is of paramount importance." The failure to consider this evidence was a significant oversight by the High Court.

5. Details in the Inquest Report:
The High Court inferred that the investigating officer was unsure of the facts because the inquest report lacked details about the occurrence. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, clarifying that the purpose of an inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain the cause of death, not to detail the incident or identify the accused. The Court cited previous rulings to support that the omission of such details in the inquest report does not invalidate the prosecution's case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment to be "wholly perverse and illegal" for failing to consider the testimony of eyewitnesses and for basing its decision on unsustainable grounds. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur were restored. The accused were ordered to surrender forthwith to undergo their sentences, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur was directed to take immediate steps to take the accused into custody and for the realization of fines.

---