SALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As Pithily stated in Jennison vs. Baker 1972 (11 ALL ER 997), the law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope, the Courts have to ensure that accused persons are punished and that the might or authority of the State are not used to shield themselves or their man. It should be ensured that they do to wield such powers which under the Constitution has to be held only in trust for the public and society at large. If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiencies, the Courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand, within the framework of law. It is as much the duty of the prosecution as of the Court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice' and to prevent the aspect that the faith and trust of a common citizen is not eroded.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that his only son, namely, Gurjant Singh, aged 22 years, was brutally murdered at the hands of the private respondents, one of whom, happens to be a police officer and posted as Station House Officer in the same area, while the others are the henchmen of the a local MLA of ruling party, namely, Mr. Harminder Singh Gill. It was averred in the petition that the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members was being threatened by the private respondents who are accused of murdering the son of the petitioner. Despite a number of representations having been moved, the said persons were roaming freely in the area and were threatening the petitioner and his family members with dire consequences, while enjoying patronage of the local MLA.

(3.) The petition was disposed of by this Court on 22.09.2016, in the following terms:-