Lawrence Bishnoi acquitted in assault case as witnesses fail to identify him

The court noted that two co-accused, Navpreet Singh alias Nitar and Tarsem Singh alias Sahiba, had been declared proclaimed offenders and were not facing trial. Their cases would be addressed upon their arrest or voluntary surrender. Jindal’s ruling clarified that the findings in Bishnoi’s acquittal would not affect future proceedings against the proclaimed offenders.

The prosecution presented only two witnesses—complainant Satwinder Singh and eyewitness Kavin Sushant—both of whom turned hostile and failed to identify Bishnoi in court.

The judgment emphasised the importance of establishing the accused’s identity in a criminal trial, stating, “No person can be indicted without clear identification. Since the complainant and eyewitness did not support the prosecution, further examination of other formal witnesses would be redundant.”

During the trial, the court observed that the testimonies of Singh and Sushant were essential to the prosecution’s case, reiterating that in criminal law, the burden of proof rests heavily on the prosecution. The evidence had to meet the standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ and the prosecution had failed to rebut the presumption of innocence.

Satwinder Singh, in his testimony, recalled the incident from 2011, stating, “In February 2011, I was at home with my friend Kavin when six armed men arrived in a Bolero car and attacked me, causing injuries on my wrist, finger, and back. However, I could not identify the assailants, nor could I recognise the accused in court.”

The court remarked, “This witness has failed to identify Lawrence Bishnoi.”

Summing up the case, the court noted that the charges—under IPC Sections 324, 452, 336, 506, 148, and 149, as well as Sections 25-54-59 of the Arms Act—were unproven due to the witnesses’ lack of support and the absence of evidence linking Bishnoi to the crime. Consequently, Bishnoi was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.