Baljinder Kumar @ Kala vs. State Of Punjab

2025 INSC 856

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2688-2689 OF 2024


BALJINDER KUMAR @ KALA …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT(S)


J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. One can fairly imagine the amplitude of havoc that
would wreak loose in a quiet village which on one
fine morning wakes up to the news of four members
of a family dead, including two lives yet to even
reach the incipient age of five years, and with two
other family members grievously injured. To add to
the horror, the primary suspect in the entire
incident is the father of the deceased children. At
least, that is what the alleged eyewitnesses’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.07.16
16:10:16 IST
Reason:
account points towards. It is but natural that the
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 1 of 56


case garners enough sensation in no time to
become a headline in the local papers and the
pressure on the investigating agencies is enormous
to find the culprit. The breakdown of the legal
system becomes apparent when such haste to lay
a finger of blame on somebody leads to a shoddy
investigation and a poorly conducted trial. The
result is a loosely tied prosecution case with glaring
loopholes all across and yet the Courts’ enthusiasm
to deliver justice in such a heinous crime ensures
that the accused person ends up on the death row,
albeit without sufficient evidence. This is precisely
the misery which the instant case entails.
2. The present appeals have been preferred by the
accused-appellant assailing the judgment and
order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana in MRC No. 1 of 2020 and
CRA-D No. 323 of 2020. The High Court, vide the
impugned order, has upheld the conviction and
confirmed the sentence of death imposed on the
appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Kapurthala, on 29.02.2020 in Case No.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 2 of 56


SC/64/2014, under Sections 302, 308 and 325 of
1
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
Factual Background –

3. The case of the prosecution is that in the early
morning of 29.11.2013, PW1–Vijay Kumar (“the
complainant”) saw the appellant outside his
mother’s (PW2–Manjit Kaur) house armed with a
datar, wherein the appellant told the complainant
that “he has finished what he had started”, and fled
away with 3-4 unidentified persons who were
armed with a gandasi and rods. On entering PW2’s
house, the complainant found his following
relatives in injured condition – (i) Seema Rani aged
26 years (sister of PW1; wife of the appellant), (ii)
Reena Rani aged 28 years (sister of PW1; sister-in-
law of the appellant), (iii) Harry aged 5 years (son of
Seema Rani from her first marriage; adopted son of
Reena Rani; step-son of the appellant), (iv) Sumani
Kumari aged 3-4 years (daughter born out of the
wedlock between Seema Rani and the appellant),
(v) Harsh aged 1.5-2 years (son born out of the
wedlock between Seema Rani and the appellant),

1
IPC, hereinafter.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 3 of 56


and (vi) Om Prakash @ Tari aged 18 years (brother
of PW1). PW1 called an ambulance, and all the six
injured persons were taken to the hospital where
Seema Rani, Reena Rani, Sumani Kumari and
Harsh were declared brought dead while Harry and
Om Prakash @ Tari were admitted at the hospital.

4. The FIR was registered at 11.15 a.m. on
29.11.2013 itself under Sections 302, 323 and 34
of the IPC at Police Station Satnampura,
Kapurthala by S.I. Karnail Singh (‘Investigating
Officer/IO’) on receiving a telephonic message from
the Civil Hospital, Phagwara. On 15.02.2014, on
receipt of opinion from the doctor regarding nature
of injuries on the person of injured Om Prakash
and Harry, the offence was enhanced under
Sections 308 and 325 IPC, while offence under
Section 34 of IPC was reduced. The appellant was
arrested subsequently on 30.01.2014 post his
discharge from the hospital since he was also
undergoing treatment of his arm since the date of
incident.
5. After completion of the investigation, challan was
presented against the appellant above to face trial
under Sections 302, 308, 325 and 323 of the IPC.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 4 of 56


The case was committed to the Sessions Court,
vide order dated 21.05.2014, wherein the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the
course of prosecution evidence, the case was
transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Kapurthala, wherein it was heard and
decided as Case No. SC/64/2014.
6. The motive attributed by the prosecution to the
appellant is that the appellant’s sister, one Rekha
Rani was married to one Haria – however, due to
matrimonial dispute between the parties, the
marriage was dissolved by divorce in presence of
the panchayat wherein Haria returned all the
dowry articles and also undertook to pay Rs.
35,000/- as maintenance to Rekha Rani. PW2–
Manjit Kaur (mother-in-law of the appellant) stood
as guarantor for Haria for returning the amount,
and when such amount was not paid, it led to
constant fights between the appellant and his wife
Seema Rani. The fight had escalated to such an
extent where the appellant had threatened to kill
his wife and children if the money was not paid,
and it also led to Seema Rani along with her
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 5 of 56


children coming to her maternal home on
17.11.2013 after she was beaten by the accused.
7. While this was the motive ascribed, the primary
evidence considered against the appellant by the
Courts below was the testimonies of
PW1/complainant, PW2 who claims to be an
eyewitness and PW17 who is an injured child
witness. Besides the testimonies, there were also
alleged discoveries of blood-stained clothes, a
gandasi and a bicycle at the behest of the appellant
based on his disclosure statement dated
01.02.2014, which led to the prosecution
establishing its case against the accused-
appellant.
Trial Court’s findings –

8. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case
before the Trial Court, examined 22 prosecution
witnesses while the accused examined no witness
in defence in spite of availing sufficient
opportunities. The lead witnesses presented by the
prosecution other than the medical officers and
members of the investigation team included – (i)
PW1–Vijay Kumar (complainant); (ii) PW2–Manjit
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 6 of 56


Kaur (claims to be eyewitness); and, (iii) PW17–
Harry (injured child witness). Other than this,
PW23–Om Prakash, who was an injured witness,
was presented before the Court but was not
examined as a witness on oath on account of being
found mentally unfit and thereby, not a competent
witness.
9. In order to draw a verdict about the conviction of
the accused, the Trial Court, after hearing the rival
contentions raised by the respective counsels,
considered the following arguments and formed its
reasoning on the varied grounds which are
summarized as below –
A. Delay in lodging FIR: The incident is alleged to
have taken place at about 6 a.m. on 29.11.2013
and the FIR was lodged on the same day at
around 11 a.m. The Trial Court held that
naturally, the first effort of the complainant was
to save the life of his six injured family members.
As such, arranging the ambulance and taking
them to the hospital consumed a lot of time and
FIR cannot be said to be delayed in such
circumstances.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 7 of 56



B. No independent witness: The defence counsel
had argued that PW1–Vijay Kumar, PW2–Manjit
Kaur and PW17–Harry are close relatives of the
deceased persons and interested witnesses, and
since no independent witness of the locality has
been examined, thus their testimony cannot be
relied upon. The Trial Court held that since the
incident had taken place in the house of PW2–
Manjit Kaur and that too in the early hours of
the morning, therefore, she is the most natural
and best witness. Further, PW17–Harry is a
witness who sustained injuries during the
occurrence and his presence at the place cannot
be denied, therefore, his evidence cannot be
discarded solely on the ground of being a close
relative.
C. Presence of PW2–Manjit Kaur at the spot:
Manjit Kaur, who claims to be an eyewitness to
the incident, stated that after witnessing the
occurrence, she managed to slip away outside
the house and concealed herself behind the
bushes out of fear and came back half an hour
later. The defence counsel had contended that
such a conduct was highly improbable and
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 8 of 56


unnatural for a mother to leave her children at
the mercy of the killer while slipping away from
the place of occurrence and makes her presence
at the spot extremely doubtful. The Trial Court
observed that the reflex of every human being in
a dangerous situation varies and it is quite
natural that, in order to save herself from the
attack, Manjit Kaur managed to escape from the
house. Further, it was held that her account that
she was about to leave for Gurudwara, in
accordance with her daily ritual, was
corroborated by PW17–Harry who had the same
impression that his grandmother had left for
Gurudwara by that hour.
D. Disclosure statement recorded and recovery
effected without any independent witness:
The defence counsel had submitted that there
was no independent witness present at the time
of recording of disclosure statement of the
accused, nor at the time of effecting recovery of
weapon. The Trial Court held that Section 27 of
2
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not lay
down that the statement made to police official

2
Evidence Act
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 9 of 56


should always be in presence of independent
witnesses. Thus, in such matters, Court seeks
corroboration from independent witnesses as a
matter of caution and not as a matter of rule. It
was held that the recovery of blood-stained
clothes of the accused finds corroboration from
the testimony of PW2–Manjit Kaur, who had
categorically stated that the accused, at the time
of occurrence, was wearing black shirt and blue
pajama and the same were recovered.
E. Discrepancies in the statement of other PWs
about presence of PW2 at the spot and
presence of private persons other than the
accused: The Trial Court held that the
contradictions pointed out by the defence
counsel are minor in nature, and the two
eyewitnesses and one injured child witness have
stood the test of scrutiny despite the lengthy
cross-examination. It was observed that such
minor contradictions do not go to the root of the
prosecution case.
F. Defence of accused’s arm being amputated:
The defence counsel had argued that the left arm
of the accused has been amputated and, in such
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 10 of 56


a condition, it would have been impossible for
the accused to carry out murder of four persons
and cause injuries to two others with one hand
using gandasi. However, PW1, during his cross-
examination, had stated that the accused’s arm
had been amputated after the alleged
occurrence. This was also supplemented by the
statement of PW15–Dr. Ramesh Chander who
had attended to the accused at Civil Hospital,
Phagwara. Further, no suggestion whatsoever,
nor any evidence has been adduced by the
accused to submit that his arm was amputated
prior to the occurrence. Therefore, this
argument of the defence also fell flat.
G. Motive: The Trial Court held that the motive has
been established amply in shape of testimony of
PW18–Satnam Singh (Sarpanch) who had stated
about the panchayati divorce between the sister
of the accused and Haria and also the fact that
PW2–Manjit Kaur stood as a guarantor towards
the promise of payment of Rs. 35,000/-. Thus, it
was clear that the appellant was nourishing a
grudge against Manjit Kaur and her family
members.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 11 of 56



H. Plea of alibi: It was observed by the Trial Court
that the accused was admitted to Civil Hospital,
Phagwara at about 7 p.m. on 29.11.2013, i.e. the
day of the incident due to some accidental
injuries, whereas the occurrence had taken
place at about 6 a.m. on the same day, i.e. more
than twelve hours prior to him being admitted in
the hospital. Therefore, the plea of alibi merely
on this ground is nothing but a bald assertion
and shall not succeed as the accused has failed
to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to
support his plea.

I. Injuries/medical evidence reflect the
intention to kill: The Trial Court analysed the
post-mortem reports and the medical opinion of
the members of Board of doctors who conducted
post-mortem which led it to conclude that the
injuries were caused by the accused on the vital
body parts of the deceased and such injuries
were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. Therefore, it was established
that the accused caused the injuries only with
the intention to brutally kill them, leaving no
chance of their survival.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 12 of 56



J. Conviction under Sections 308 and 325 of
the IPC: The Trial Court considered the medical
reports and the statement of Medical Officer
opining that “injury no. 3, possibility of
dangerous to life, could not be ruled out”, and
held that from the intention of accused, while
causing injuries to minor Harry, ingredients of
offence under Section 308 of IPC stand proven.
Additionally, with regard to the injuries meted
out to Om Prakash, the Medical Officer opined
that the “possibility of injury nos. 1 and 3 to be
grievous in nature cannot be ruled out”. Even
though the final opinion regarding the injury
was not placed on record by the prosecution, the
Trial Court went ahead and held that the guilt of
accused for the offence punishable under
Section 325 of IPC stands proved.
K. Recovery of weapon and blood-stained
clothes: A gandasi, i.e. the weapon used for the
commission of the crime along with blood-
stained clothes of the accused and a cycle were
allegedly recovered on the basis of the accused’s
disclosure statement. The clothes and gandasi
were sent for chemical analysis, and the said
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 13 of 56


report stated that “The exhibits contained in the
parcel A and B are stained with human blood”.
The said report was not exhibited before the Trial
Court, but the Court, nevertheless, took judicial
notice of the same and held that the report of
chemical examiner is admissible in evidence as
per Section 293 of the Code of Criminal
3
Procedure, 1973 . The Court went ahead to the
extent of holding that the blood-stained clothes
and weapon of offence leave no room for doubt
to connect the accused with the commission of
crime.

10. Thereby, it was held by the Trial Court that the
prosecution has been able to prove guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the
accused, vide judgment dated 29.02.2020, was
convicted under Section 302 of IPC on four counts
(i.e. Seema Rani, Reena Rani, Harsh and Sumani
Kumari) along with Sections 308 and 325 of the
IPC.
11. The order of sentence against the accused was
passed by the Trial Court on the same day after
lunch, wherein the Court held it to be one of the

3
Cr.P.C.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 14 of 56


rarest of rare cases and sentenced the accused to
death under Section 302 IPC for committing four
murders. The accused was also sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only), in
default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year under Section 302 IPC, in case his
death sentence is not confirmed by the High Court.
Further, the accused was sentenced to undergo
seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) under
Section 308 of IPC, in default of payment of fine to
further undergo ten months’ rigorous
imprisonment. Similarly, under Section 325 of IPC,
the accused was sentenced to undergo seven years’
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only), and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten months. All the sentences
were to run consecutively in case death sentence is
not confirmed. Out of the amount of fine imposed,
rd
2/3 of the amount was to be paid as
compensation to the victim PW2–Manjit Kaur as
well as injured persons namely Harry and Om
Prakash, in equal proportions.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 15 of 56



12. The elemental factors considered by the Trial Court
while categorizing the instant case in the “rarest of
rare” category and awarding death sentence to the
accused included that the crime was not
committed in the heat of passion but was pre-
meditated as the convict was nourishing grudge
against his own family members and led to
committing murder of his own wife, two children
and sister-in-law. The Court also observed that if
the accused could go on to take such an extreme
step, he could very well be a danger to the life of
complainant and PW2. It was held that the balance
tilted towards the aggravating circumstances as
the crime shook the society’s conscience and the
convict deserves to meet the gallows.
High Court’s findings –
13. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment,
notes the findings of the Trial Court, details the
arguments of the opposing counsels and proceeds
to record its reasons for upholding the conviction.
However, the High Court notes certain fallacies
committed by the Trial Court, especially with
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 16 of 56


regard to its analysis of the deposition of PW1–Vijay
Kumar.
14. The High Court firstly noted that the site plan (Ex
PW22/J) does not show that the
PW1/complainant’s house is adjacent to that of his
mother/PW2. Further, it was noted that the cycle
repair shop of the complainant, which is where the
complainant lived as per PW2’s statement, is
situated 10 kilometers away from the house where
the occurrence took place. Thus, it was held to be
apparent that PW1–Vijay Kumar was not residing
near the house in question and, therefore, it was
highly improbable for him to be at the spot when
the accused was coming out by holding gandasi
after committing the offence. Therefore, PW1’s
statement as to him having witnessed the accused
while exiting the house after the incident was
completely discarded by the High Court.
15. Subsequently, the High Court also observed that
the manner in which the recovery of gandasi along
with blood-stained clothes and the cycle had been
effected after a considerable period of two months
from the house of the accused does not inspire any
confidence in the investigation and rather brings
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 17 of 56


out glaring lapse on the part of the investigating
agency.
16. However, the High Court granted unblemished
acceptance to PW2–Manjit Kaur’s statement as to
her being present in the house at the relevant hour
and that she was an eyewitness to the entire
incident who fled away the scene out of fear of her
own safety.
17. Further, with regard to the injuries sustained by
the accused on the day of the incident and how the
accused offered no explanation as to the cause of
injuries, the High Court employed Section 106 of
the Evidence Act to place reverse onus on the
appellant. Failure to provide any explanation by the
accused pertaining to his injuries led the Court to
treat it as another reason to confirm the conviction
by presuming that the said injuries were received
by the accused during the assault on account of
defence put up by the deceased and injured victims
other than the minor children.
18. Another factor that weighed with the High Court
was that the manner in which the assault was
committed clearly showed that it was by a person
who was keenly nursing a grudge and was not a
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 18 of 56


case of robbery by unknown persons who could
have easily over-powered the minor children and
deceased women without inflicting injuries of such
severe nature.
19. As such, the High Court held that, on co-relating
the statement of PW2 and the child witness, the
motive aspect and the fact that the appellant
himself was admitted in the hospital later on the
day of incident itself as he had suffered serious
injuries, to which he has not given any plausible
explanation, would go on to show that the
prosecution is able to prove its case beyond any
shadow of doubt regarding the involvement of the
appellant.
20. The High Court also observed that the brutality of
the incident is that of a diabolic act, whereby
conscience of the society as a whole has been
shocked. The deceased, including two children and
wife of the accused-appellant himself, were done to
death in the safety of their own house and,
therefore, the Court held the case to fall in the
rarest of rare category while confirming the death
penalty.
Submissions –
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 19 of 56



21. It is in the above background that the impugned
judgment is being assailed before us by the
accused-appellant.
22. We have heard Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.
Siddhant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent–State of Punjab.
23. The counsel for the appellant, Mr. Naidu, has
argued in length before us while adequately dealing
with the evidence presented by the prosecution
before the Courts below, and their submissions can
be classified into five main contentions which are
as follows –
a) Failure of the prosecution to establish a clear
motive: It has been contended that the
purported financial dispute between the
appellant and PW2’s family which has been
attributed as the root cause of animosity and
gave birth to the crime remains uncorroborated
since the prosecution failed to examine Haria or
the appellant’s sister, who were the principal
parties to the alleged transaction.
b) Contradictions and embellishments in
Prosecution Witness testimonies: It has been
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 20 of 56


exhaustively argued that the testimonies of the
key witnesses, i.e. PW1 and PW2 are riddled with
contradictions ranging from the presence of the
said witnesses to the weapon used and the
existence of any accompanying accused
persons. Even though, the appellant’s counsel
has made pinpointed attacks and brought forth
specific discrepancies, we are deliberately not
elaborating the said submission at the instant
juncture, as it shall be dealt with appropriately
in the latter part of the judgment, while
analysing the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.
c) Deficiencies in the investigation and
questionable evidentiary value of the alleged
recoveries: It was submitted that the arrest as
well as the recovery of weapon and clothes was
not supported by any independent witness.
Further, the disclosure statement being made
two months after the incident and the lack of
DNA or forensic evidence with regard to the
recovered articles point towards investigative
loopholes and inconclusive evidence on record.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 21 of 56



d) Failure to meet the standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt: The above-mentioned
deficiencies highlight the failure of the
prosecution case in being able to meet the
required standard of proof and legal threshold
for conviction in cases of such nature.

e) Non-applicability of the “rarest of rare”
doctrine: Without prejudice to the above
grounds, it was submitted that even as such, the
instant case does not qualify as “rarest of rare”
and, therefore, even if in arguendo , the accused
is convicted, the sentence of death penalty shall
be too grave and wholly unwarranted.
24. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent–
State has unequivocally supported the findings of
the Courts below and submitted that the impugned
judgment should not be interfered with. It was
submitted that there was an eyewitness account of
the complainant PW1, PW2–Manjit Kaur and the
child witness Harry, and minor discrepancies in
the statements of the witnesses can be overlooked,
especially in view of the fact that there was a motive
and the presence of injured eyewitness is
irrefutable. It was submitted that the consequential
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 22 of 56


recoveries of the weapon and the blood-stained
clothes further strengthen the prosecution’s case,
and there is no plausible reason to disbelieve the
same.
Analysis –
25. Having heard the in-detail submissions and
perused the material on record, we find it of utmost
importance to primarily delve into the depositions
of key witnesses. It is apparent that the Courts
below have strongly relied upon the testimonies of
three witnesses to bring home the conclusion of
guilt against the accused. These three witnesses
are – (i) PW1–Vijay Kumar (the complainant), (ii)
PW2–Manjit Kaur (alleged eyewitness), and (iii)
PW17–Harry (injured child witness). Before we
proceed ahead with verifying the inter-se
corroboration amongst these testimonies, it would
be relevant to reproduce the contents of FIR (which
was registered at the instance of PW1) as well as
the above-mentioned depositions.

Ex. PW22/B
FIR No. 54/2013 at P.S. Satnampura,
Phagwara registered on 29.11.2013
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 23 of 56


Statement of Vijay Kumar son of Late Daulat
Ram, caste Adharmi, R/o Kot Rani, PS
Satnampura, Phagwara, aged 28 years.
Stated that I am resident of above stated
address. I am running a cycle repair shop at
my residence. We are two brothers. My
younger brother is Om Parkash @ Tari. We
have two houses and have a joint family.
Yesterday dated 28.11.2013 in our house
situated in Dashmesh Puri my mother Manjit
Kaur, my brother Om Parkash @ Tari, my
sister Seema Rani and her children Harry
aged 6 years, Sumani Kumari aged 3 years,
Harsh 2 years and sister Reena Rani aged 28
years were sleeping in the house at night. My
mother used to visit Shri Gurudwara Sahib
at Dashmesh Puri daily in the morning.
Sunehri Lai husband of my sister Reena Rani
is living abroad since two years due to this
reason she is living with us. My sister Seema
Rani wife of Baljinder Kumar @ Kala R/o
village Gurray, PS Guraya whose marriage
was solemnized since six years ago, also
living with us from 15 to 20 days alongwith
her children due to disputes with her
husband. On dated 14.11.2013 Baljinder
Kumar @ Kala came our house and
threatened all of us that if we did not paid
Rs.35,000/- to him he would kill his children
and his wife. Today at about 6.00 a.m. I
alongwith my wife went to our another
house to drink tea from my mother and
when we reached at our house near the gate
in a gali we saw that Baljinder Singh @ Kala
armed with Datar came out from our house
and asked us upon seeing that he would told
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 24 of 56


us to face consequences for not giving
Rs.35,000/- to him and he did the same what
he had said and he fleed away from the spot.
We had seen three/four unidentified
persons armed with Gandasis and Rods
ran away alongwith him towards cremation
ground and when we entered our house and
saw that both of my sisters Seema Rani and
Reena Rani, my brother Om Parkash @ Tari
and three children Harry, Sumani Kumari
and Harsh smeared with blood. The blood
was scattered in the room here and there.
Then I called Ambulance No. 108 for help and
we went all of them to Civil Hospital
Phagwara, there doctor Sahib declared my
sister Seema Rani, Reena Rani, Children
Sumani Kumari and Harsh dead. My brother
Om Parkash @ Tari and Harry being injured
was admitted to the hospital for treatment.
All the offence occurred by Baljinder Kumar
@ Kala son of Kaila Ram residence of village
Gurray PS Guraya alongwith unidentified
persons armed with weapons with my
family. Action be taken against them.
Statement was recorded, heard being correct.
Sd/- Vijay Kumar, Attested by Sd/- Karnail
Singh SHO PS Satnampura dated
29.11.2013.
[Emphasis is mine]

Examination-in-chief and cross-
examination of PW1 – Vijay Kumar
PW-1 on SA: Vijay Kumar son of Late
Daulat Ram son of Ram Kishan, aged 28
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 25 of 56


years, Cycle repair shop, resident of
village Kot Rani, P.S. Satnampura,
Phagwara District Kapurthala.
I am running a cycle repair shop at Kot
Rani. We are two brothers. The name of my
younger brother is Om Parkash @ Tari. We
are having two houses with joint family. One
of our house is in village Kot Rani and the
second house is situated in Mohalla
Deshmesh Puri adjoining to Kot Rani. We
have two sisters namely Reena Rani and
Seema Rani. My sister Reena Rani has been
residing with us for the last two years and
her husband is residing abroad. My sister
Seema Rani was married with accused
present in the Court since the last about six
years. She was having three children namely
Sumani Kumari, Harsh and Harry. The
marriage of sister of the accused was got
performed by my mother with Hariya. There
was held divorce between the said sister of
the accused and her husband and my
mother was to pay Rs. 35,000/- to the
accused. Due to this reason, there are used
remain altercation between Seema Rani and
her husband i.e. the accused who is present
in the Court. For this reason my said sister
Seema Rani alongwith her children came to
reside with us about 15 days prior to the
occurrence.
On 14.11.2013, accused came to our
house in village Kot Rani, and threatened us
to kill Seema Rani, Reena Rani and children
of Seema Rani. On 29.11.2013 my mother
Manjit Kaur had gone to Gurudwara at
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 26 of 56


about 06.00 AM. At that time on the said
date my both the said sisters, my mother and
children of Seema Rani were present in the
house situated in the area of Dashmesh Puri
above-said. On 29.11.2013, I alongwith my
wife Sunita Devi were going to our house
situated in Dashmesh Puri to take tea
alongwith my mother. When we reached at
the gate of the above-said house, we saw
accused Baljnder Kumar coming running
out from the said house alongwith
Gandasi. On seeing us, he told us that he
has done what he has to do and to face the
consequences for not making the payment of
Rs.35,000/-. After uttering this, he ran away
from the spot towards the cremation ground.
When we entered in the house, he saw that
both of my sisters Seema Rani and Reena
Rani, my brother Om Parkash @ Tari and
three children of Seema Rani smeared with
blood. The blood was scattered in the room.
Then ambulance 108 was called at the spot
and brought the injured to Civil Hospital,
Phagwara in said ambulance. On reaching
Civil Hospital, Phagwara the doctor told us
Seema Rani, Reena Rani and children
Sumani Kumari and Harsh are dead. My
injured brother and child Harry were
admitted in the said hospital for treatment.
The accused had murdered my sisters Seema
Rani, Reena Rani and children Sumani
Kumari and Harsh and had got injury to Om
Parkash @ Tari and Harry and made by
statement to the police which bears my
signature and I identify the same. The said
statement is EX.PA.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 27 of 56


On 29.11.2013, police reached at the spot
and lifted blood from the spot which was put
into dubbi plastic which was sealed with the
seal of mark "KS" and the same was taken
into police possession vide memo EX PB
which was attested by me and other police
officials. Police also took into possession
blood stained shawl and bed sheet of dubble
bed from the spot vide EX.PC which was also
attested by me and other police officials. My
statement was also recorded in this regard.
On 01.02 2014, the accused got recovered
one gandasi made of iron, blood stained
clothes i.e. Pajama and one vest (both blood
stained) which were worn by accused at the
time of alleged occurrence from the residence
house behind the petti in village Burra. He
also got recovered one cycle from another
room of his house. Sketch EX.PD of
recovered gandasi was prepared. Thereafter,
this gandasi alongwith the bicycle and above-
said clothes were taken into police
possession vide memo EX.PE, The said
sketch and memo bearing my signatures as
attesting witness. My statement with regard
to this recovery was also recorded. I identify
the accused present in the Court.
(Remaining examination in chief is deferred
at the request of Ld PP that case property of
this case not produced)
Dated 30.07.2014
PW-1 on SA: Vijay Kumar son of Late
Daulat Ram recalled for further
examination in chief.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 28 of 56


I have seen the sealed parcels of gandasi
EX.P1 and clothes EX.P2 in the Court today.
At the request of Ld. PP these parcels are
ordered to be opened. On opening parcel
EX.P1, a gandasi is taken out which is
EX.P3. It is the same gandasi which was got
recovered by the accused. On opening parcel
EX.P2, one pajama and one T-shirt blood
stained are taken out which are EX.P4 and
EX.P5 respectively. These are the same
clothes which were got recovered by the
accused. I have also seen the cycle EX.P6. It
is the same which was got recovered by the
accused.
XXXXXmn:- on behalf of the accused.
Gandasi and clothes of the accused were
seen by me in the house of the accused.
These articles were recovered from the room
of the accused. The brothers and other family
members of the accused are residing with
him. The accused took the police alongwith
me to his house. Many residents of the village
had assembled in the house of the accused
when we went there. The police had not
obtained their signatures on any paper. The
police did the writing work regarding the
recovery. We had gone there at 09/10:00
A.M. The police did the writing work in the
room of the house of the accused. The other
family members of the accused came to the
house when we reached there and by that
time we had not entered in the room of the
alleged recovery. It is correct that if we had
gone to the house of the accused the alleged
recovery could have been effected on search
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 29 of 56


without the assistance of accused. It is
incorrect to suggest that nothing was
recovered from the house of the accused in
my presence and I have deposed falsely on
this aspect. It is also wrong to suggest that
police did not do any writing work at the
house of accused.
Seema alongwith her children had come
to our house on the 14th of month but I do
not remember the month. It is wrong to
suggest that I alongwith my family residing
separately from my mother. My cycle repair
shop is situated at 10 kilometers from my
house where the alleged occurrence took
place. I stated in my statement EX PA that
accused was armed with a gandasi.
Confronted with his said statement where
gandasi is not mentioned. My mother was
present at the time of alleged occurrence.
The occurrence took place at about 06:00
A.M. My mother was present in the house
when the alleged occurrence took place.
My mother used to go to Gurudwara to pay
obeisance. She used to go to Gurudwara at
about 06:00 A.M and return at about 07.00
A.M. from Gurudwara. I had stated in my
statement EX.PA that my mother had to
Gurudwara at about 06.00 A.M. on
29.11.2013. Attention of the witness drawn
towards EX.PA where this fact is not
specifically recorded. It is incorrect to
suggest that my mother had not witnessed
the occurrence. The police recorded my
statement EX.PA at about 11:00 A.M at Civil
Hospital, Phagwara. I do not know at which
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 30 of 56


place and on which date statement of my
mother was recorded. I and my wife had not
chased the accused. He was accompanied
with 3-4 persons. But we had not noticed
any weapon in the hands of those persons
as they had run away. All those persons ran
towards the creation ground side. When we
entered the house and saw the injured
lying in pool of blood, we raised raula. It is
correct that a news regarding the alleged
occurrence was also published in the
newspaper EX.Dl (objected to). It was a
correct news which was published in EX.D1
(objected to). The accused was arrested after
about three days of the occurrence. It is
correct that his left arm has been amputated.
Voluntarily It was amputated after the
alleged occurrence. Prior to 14th of that
month, my sister had also visited us about
15-20 days back. We did not inform the
police regarding the threats given by the
accused. Seema was married earlier also
prior to her marriage with the present
accused. It is wrong to suggest that neither
myself nor my mother had witnessed any
occurrence. It is also wrong to suggest that
we have falsely named the present accused
in this case. It is also wrong to suggest that I
have deposed falsely.
Dated 15.10.2014
[Emphasis is mine]

Examination-in-chief and cross-
examination of PW2 – Manjit Kaur
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 31 of 56


PW-2 on SA: Manjit Kaur wife of Daulat
Ram, wife of Ram Kishan, aged 55 years,
Housewife, resident of village Kot Rani,
P.S. Satnampura, Phagwara District,
Kapurthala.
Stated that I am housewife. I have two
sons namely Vijay Kumar and Om Parkash @
Tari. Said Om Parkash @ Tari is mentally
retarded person. I have two daughters
namely Seema Rani and Reena Rani. My
daughter Reena Rani was married with
Sunhari Lal. Her husband is residing abroad.
Since husband of Reena Rani has been
residing abroad so she was residing with us
for the last about two years. She was
issueless. From the first marriage of Seema
Rani she was having one child namely Harry
who was taking into adoption by Reena Rani.
Second marriage of my daughter Seema Rani
was performed with Baljinder Kumar @ Kala
resident of village Burra the accused present
in the Court about 5-6 years back. My
daughter Seema Rani was having two
children from her second marriage namely
Sumani Kumari and Harsh. Rekha Rani
sister of accused was married with Hariya
resident of Atta near Goraya. There were not
cordial relations between said Rekha Rani
and Hariya and as such they could not pull
on together. A divorce was taken place
between them on 19.10.2013 in the presence
of panchayats of both the parties. I was also
present in said panchayat at that time.
Hariya returned the entire dowry articles to
accused Baljinder Kumar. Said Hariya had
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 32 of 56


also undertaken to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/-
to accused of this case. I stood as guarantor
on behalf of Hariya to make payment of said
amount of Rs.35,000/- to the accused as I
was mediator in the above-said marriage of
Rekha Rani with Hariya. Hariya did not make
the payment above-said of Rs.35,000/- as
agreed within stipulated date and as result
thereof there used to remain altercation
between Seema Rani and her husband
Baljinder Kumar accused. On 14.11.2013,
my daughter Seema Rani and her husband
Baljinder Kumar came together to my house.
He threatened us in case we did not make the
payment of the above-said amount of
Rs.35,000/- he will kill all of us. Thereafter,
Seema Rani alongwith children again came
to my house on 17 11.2013 after she was
beaten by the accused.
On 29.11.2013 I was present in my
house and I was likely to go to Gurudwara
at about 05:30 A.M. I did not go to
Gurudwara and after sometimes, I went to
the bathroom side. On hearing of voice I
came out from the bathroom then I saw
accused Baljinder Kumar armed with
gandasi wearing black shirt and pajama of
blue colour. Accused caused injury with
the gandasi to my daughter namely Seema
Rani and Reena Ram, said Om Parkash @
Tari, Harsh, Harry and Sumani Kumari by
causing injuries to them with the gandasi.
Accused was uttering where is their mother I
will kill her also for not making payment of
above-said Rs.35,000/-. Due to fear I ran
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 33 of 56


out of the house and raised a raula. When
I entered into the house after some times
then I saw that my both daughters, my son
and three children above-said were lying in
an injured condition. My son Vijay Kumar
and his wife came there who called an
ambulance 108 by making a telephone call
and took the injured to the Civil Hospital,
Phagwara in the said ambulance. In the
hospital doctor told that Seema Rani, Reena
Rani, Harsh and Sumani Kumari are dead
Harry and Tari were referred to DMC,
Ludhiana after giving them first aid. Accused
had caused the murder of Seema Rani,
Reena Ram, Harsh and Sumani Kumari and
also injured Tari and Harry due to non
payment of the abovesaid amount. Accused
Baljinder Kumar present in the Court to
whom I identify. My statement was recorded
by the police.
XXXXXmn:- on behalf of the accused.
(Deferred at the request of Ld.Counsel for the
accused as he has been engaged from the
Free Legal Aid side and copy of challan is not
with him)
Dated: 30.07.2014
PW-2 on SA: Manjit Kaur wife of Late
Daulat Ram recalled for cross-
examination by Ld Counsel for the
accused
I am daily visitor to the Gurudwara. I
usually go to the Gurudwara at about
06:00 AM. without fail. It takes about 10-
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 34 of 56


15 minutes to reach the gurudwara if one
goes on foot. My daughter Seema came to my
house alongwith her children on 17.11.2013.
This was the second marriage of Seema with
accused. The accused came to my house on
14.11 2013 and threatened us. We did not
inform the police regarding the factum of
threats given by the accused. The cycle
shop of my son Vijay was situated near by
my house and that shop comes after
crossing two shops from my house and he
resides in that shop. 1 have never seen my
said son Vijay Kumar taking intoxicants.
There is one varandah outside the shop. My
son Vijay Kumar and his wife reside in the
house where Vijay Kumar runs cycle
repair shop. My son Vijay Kumar and his
wife came earlier to me to the place of
occurrence. Police recorded my statement in
my house when we had came back after
depositing the dead bodies in the mortuary
after 11:00 A.M. 1 do not remember the exact
time when my statement was recorded by the
police. I do not know if my statement was
recorded earlier or if the statement of my son
Vijay Kumar was recorded earlier then my
statement. The male folk was separate then
the women folk when the police recorded the
statements of mine and my son. It is wrong
to suggest that our bathroom is situated
with varandah adjoining to the roadside
but it is situated near our kitchen. We
have got only one bathroom in our house
near our kitchen. Police did not prepare site
plan in my presence. It is wrong to suggest
that from inside the bathroom, place of
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 35 of 56


occurrence is not visible. Our bathroom and
toilet are separate. I heard the noise while
sitting in the bathroom at about 06:00
A.M. I did not go immediately to the room
i.e. place of occurrence, but I ran outside
of the house being afraid of the accused.
At that time our main gate was open through
which I came outside. I ran towards colony
raising raula. My son and his wife came to
me hearing my raula, when I came back to
my home. My said son and his wife also
came there. I concealed myself near the
factory situated near colony. I hid myself
behind the bushes, for about half an hour.
After half an hour, I gained the
consciousness. I lost my consciousness
behind the bushes. I do not remember if I had
got recorded to the police in my statement
that I had run out of my house raising raula.
Accused had threatened us on 14.11.2013
and thereafter, I saw him at the time of
occurrence. I do not know if a news item was
published in some newspaper qua the said
occurrence. My son Vijay Kumar and his
wife Sunita had come to us to have cup of
tea on their own. It is incorrect to suggest
that neither myself nor my son had seen the
occurrence. It is further wrong to suggest
that the accused never visited my house on
14.11.2013, nor he gave any threat to us on
the said day. It is also wrong to suggest that
the accused has been falsely implicated in
this case.
Dated: 30.07.2014
[Emphasis is mine]
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 36 of 56



26. The precise purpose behind reproducing the above
testimonies of PW1 and PW2 is to bring forth the
striking contradictions and incongruities which
become as clear as a day on a singular
comprehensive reading. The prosecution relied
laboriously on the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 to
establish the appellant’s presence and conduct at
the scene. The Trial Court has lent its
unquestionable acceptance to the two testimonies.
Even though the High Court displayed a degree of
caution, was quick to recognize the inconsistencies
in PW1’s deposition and discarded the same, yet
again, found no reason to doubt PW2’s account of
events, extended her the credibility of being an
eyewitness to the entire incident and considered it
to be unimpeachable. We are, however, unable to
accord the same degree of sanctity to the
testimonies of these two purported star witnesses.
The reasons are multiple and based on ample
discrepancies which are discussed as follows –
A. Presence of PW1 at the spot:
Although PW1’s presence at the spot has
already been discarded by the High Court, we
find it relevant to discuss the same as it also
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 37 of 56


points towards blazing contradictions in PW2’s
account of events and raises several questions
about the veracity of her own statement.
Firstly, PW1 states that his cycle shop where
he resided is ten kilometres away from the place
of occurrence, whereas PW2 stated that the said
cycle shop is merely two buildings away from
her house. PW2’s claim goes unverified by the
record since no site map has been placed on
record to reflect that the two places are in the
same neighbouring area. Rather, it has come on
record at various places in the case file that
PW2’s house and PW1’s house/cycle shop were
located in two different villages. Therefore,
PW2’s statement in this regard is clearly false.
Further, PW1, in FIR as well as during his
deposition, states that on the morning of
29.11.2013, his wife and him were going to
PW2’s house to have tea along with her.
Whereas PW2, in her chief and cross-
examination, makes several inconsistent
statements about the arrival of PW1 to the spot.
She initially states that her son (PW1) and
daughter-in-law came to the spot as a
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 38 of 56


consequence of the ‘raula’ (hue and cry) that she
raised. She reiterates the same sentiment in her
cross-examination but, a few sentences later,
she goes ahead and says that the son and his
wife had come to have a cup of tea on their own.
At one point of time, she also mentions in her
cross-examination that PW1 and his wife had
come to the spot of occurrence earlier than
herself. It also must be noted that PW1 nowhere
mentions about any raula/alarm raised by PW2,
as claimed by her good self. These jarring
inconsistencies suggest chiefly two things –
firstly, that the statement of PW2 is highly
shaky, varies at every other turn and is not
reliable at all; and secondly, that the presence
of PW1 and his wife at the spot of occurrence
cannot be deduced from the contrasting
statements and admitted facts like the distance
of cycle shop from the place of accident.
Therefore, it can be safely concluded that it
was highly unlikely for PW1 to be present at the
spot when the accused was leaving after
allegedly committing the murder and any
reliance on PW1’s statement to convict the
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 39 of 56


accused shall be grossly misplaced. It is
apparent, as the High Court had also
acknowledged, that PW1 had been introduced
as a sham witness by the prosecution despite
him being absent from the site of crime.
B. Presence of PW2 at the place of occurrence:
PW2–Manjit Kaur’s account of events has
been lent maximum trustworthiness by the
Courts below and she has been hailed as one
true eyewitness to the entire incident. We have
already expressed our reservations pertaining to
PW2’s statement emanating from huge
contradictions as stated above, but there are
even bigger irregularities to shake her credibility
further.
Firstly, PW2’s presence in the house during the
occurrence becomes doubtful from the initial
stage itself as PW1 nowhere mentions her
presence in the FIR which was registered on the
day of the incident itself. It is unfathomable that
the complainant would narrate the sequence of
events and would miss out on such a major and
traumatic detail as to his own mother
witnessing the murder of her children and
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 40 of 56


grandchildren. Further, even in his
examination-in-chief, PW1 reiterates that his
mother (PW2) had gone to the Gurudwara at 6
a.m. on the said morning. It is only during his
cross-examination that PW1, for the first time,
states that his mother was in the house at the
time of the alleged incident. Such dissonance in
statement clearly indicates towards the untrue
and misguiding nature of these statements.
Further, even PW2’s own account of being
present at the crime scene is highly
questionable. In her examination-in-chief, she
mentions that she heard the noise while in
bathroom, came out of the bathroom, saw the
accused committing the act, then ran out of the
house out of fear and raised ‘raula’. However, in
her cross-examination, she states that as soon
as she heard the noise while in the bathroom,
she directly ran outside the house due to fear,
thereby not directly and first-handedly
witnessing the accused committing the act of
murder and inflicting injuries. She further
states that her son and his wife came to the spot
as a result of ‘raula’ (alarm) that she raised and
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 41 of 56


that they came back to the house with her.
However, in the same breath, she also talks
about her hiding behind the bushes and losing
consciousness for about half an hour, and her
son and his wife reaching the place of
occurrence before herself. This entire narration
creates a major dent in the timeline of the
prosecution case and leads to inconsistencies
which cannot be aligned in a rational manner.
PW2’s testimony in itself is highly ambivalent,
fluctuating and shows no sign of coherence of
events forming an unbreakable chain. The
incompatibility of a sequence of events only
becomes more apparent when the statements of
the two star witnesses are attempted to be read
together. A natural conclusion of the above
depositions is that PW2’s presence at the crime
scene as an eyewitness is highly improbable as
she is thoroughly self-contradictory about the
unfolding of events on that fateful morning.
Therefore, her existence as an eyewitness also
has to be ruled out.
C. Weapon wielded by the accused:
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 42 of 56


Given the inconsistent nature of statements
throughout, it comes as no shock yet certainly
points towards another irregularity that
PW1/complainant, while getting the FIR
registered, had stated the accused to be carrying
a ‘datar’ while exiting the crime scene. However,
in the later statements made by PW1 before the
Court, which were naturally recorded after the
alleged recovery of weapon on 01.02.2014, PW1
has readily changed his stance and stated to
have seen the accused carrying a ‘gandasi’. It
must be noted that the two weapons are
considerably and visibly different, and a rural
individual, especially such as PW1 himself, is
understood to be adept in such difference and
would not ordinarily mistake one for the other.
It goes without saying that the murder weapon
becomes a relevant piece of evidence in such
cases. A subsequent and convenient switching
of statements by a key witness with regard to
seeing the accused with the said weapon only
points towards the fabricated nature of such a
statement.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 43 of 56



D. Accompanying accused persons with the
appellant:
Another unmistakable contradiction is in
PW1’s account of events in the FIR where he
states the appellant to be accompanied by
three/four unidentified persons who were
armed with gandasis and rods. Whereas, in his
chief examination, he entirely omits mentioning
any accompanying accused persons. However,
when he is confronted with such a contradiction
during the cross-examination, he admits that
the accused was accompanied by three/four
persons while fleeing the scene of crime, but
states that he did not notice any weapons in the
hands of such accused persons. These amount
to three different versions by the same
individual regarding one peculiarity i.e. if the
accused-appellant, whom he claims to have
witnessed fleeing away from the scene, was
accompanied by someone else or not. Such
inconsistency gives greater weight to our
decision to render PW1’s statement wholly
unreliable.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 44 of 56



27. Apart from the above-mentioned discrepancies in
the depositions, there is a whole array of
perceptible questions that neither the prosecution
has attempted to address, nor the Courts below
have exhibited any inquisitiveness towards. Even
though PW1 consistently mentions that he was
accompanied by his wife Sunita Devi while going to
PW2’s residence, there is no explanation as to why
Sunita Devi has not been examined at any point.
Further, irrespective of who raised the ‘raula’
(alarm), be it PW1 or PW2, if such an outcry was
actually raised at some point by either of them, it
is quite surprising to note that no neighbour has
been made a witness anywhere. It becomes
especially more shocking in a rural set up where
the community is close knit and the houses are
situated nearby. In fact, as per the site plan, the
house of one Sada Ram is located right next to that
of PW2. Therefore, it would have been unmissable
for such neighbours to not step out and witness the
alleged escape of the accused.
28. Further, it has not missed our attention that how
PW2 managed to escape the house without being
noticed by the accused, has also not been
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 45 of 56


explained and remains an enigma. She has stated
in the cross-examination that the bathroom is not
near the exit but is next to the kitchen. The site
plan prepared by the investigating agencies also
does not shed clearer light on the same and the
mystery regarding unnoticed escape only thickens,
given the difference in age and motor abilities of the
accused (28 years at the time of incident) and PW2
(aged around 55 years). The Courts below have
opted to not burden themselves with this query and
have rather believed PW2’s statement in this regard
as it is.

29. It must be noted that the Trial Court as well as the
High Court have very conveniently brushed aside
such contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and
PW2 by holding that minor contradictions do not
go to the root of prosecution case. We are unable to
succumb to the view of categorizing above-
discussed contradictions as “minor”.
30. The general principle is that only such omissions
which amount to contradiction in material
particulars can be used to discredit the testimony
4
of the witness. Whereas contradiction in the

4
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 46 of 56


statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor
discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make
5
the prosecution’s case doubtful. Material
discrepancies are those which are not normal and
6
not expected of a normal person. Moreover, when
witness testimonies exhibit significant
contradictions between their initial statements and
trial depositions, they cannot be relied upon unless
7
independently corroborated.

31. In the instant case, there are different versions of
the same set of events which are being told by these
witnesses at differing points of time, statements
retracted and remoulded as per their convenience,
wherein such difference in statements are leading
to material alterations in the chain of events. As a
result, the prosecution timeline and the
fundamental details about the occurrence are not
at all corroborated between its two key witnesses.
Therefore, we observe that the contradictions in
prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, as pointed
above, are major ones and carve a gaping hole in
the prosecution story altogether.

5
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj, (2000) 1 SCC 247
6
State of Rajasthan v. Kalki & Anr., (1981) 2 SCC 752
7
Vadivelu Thevar v State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 47 of 56



32. The internal inconsistencies and lack of
corroboration cast serious doubts and snatch away
the degree of accuracy that is to be attained while
determining the culpability of an accused in cases
of murder. We cannot turn a blind eye to the
obvious inconsistencies in the depositions of its
main witnesses which indicate deliberate
embellishment and coaching, rendering these
testimonies unreliable. Therefore, we have no
hesitation to hold that no credence can be lent to
the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and their account
of being “eyewitness” to the incident or having seen
the accused has to be discarded.
33. Once it has been deduced that the statements of
PW1 and PW2 inspire no confidence of this Court
and their presence at the scene of occurrence has
to be disbelieved, we proceed forward to analyse the
testimony of third key witness, i.e. PW17–Harry,
who was a child witness and sustained injuries
during the event, thereby, his presence at the spot
cannot be doubted. His testimony is reproduced as
below –

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 48 of 56


Examination-in-chief and cross-
examination of PW17 – Harry

PW-17 on SA: Statement of Harry son of
Sunahari Lal son of unknown, aged about
12 years, Student, R/o Daslimesh Nagar,
Kotrani, Phagwara, District Kapurthala.
Stated that I am resident of abovesaid
th
address and now studying in 5 standard.
On 28.11.2013 I was present in my maternal
grand mother Manjit Kaur’s house. On that
night I alongwith my mother Reena alongwith
my masi Seema Rani, my uncle Tari and my
cousin sister Sumani and my cousin brother
Harsh were sleeping together. In early
morning of 29.11.2013 at about 5.00 a.m.
my masar Baljinder Singh @ Kala accused
present in the court armed with Gandasi
came there in the room where we all were
sleeping and opened attacked on all of us
with gandasi and killed my mother Reena
alongwith my masi Seema Rani and my
cousin sister Sumani and my cousin brother
Harsh. The accused caused three injuries to
me on my neck and stomach. After causing
the occurrence, the accused ran away from
the spot. Due to injuries I was got
admitted in the Civil Hospital, Phagwara.
PW17 (XXXXXXXXX by Sh. Lakhbir Singh,
Advocate, counsel for the accused)
When I woke up I have not seen the
accused in the room volunteered I was
half sleep . Press reporter after visited the
seen. I do not remember the time when the
press reporter came at the spot. I have not
seen masar inflicting injuries on that
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 49 of 56


deceased and injured volunteered as I was
half sleep. My maternal grand mother used
to go to Gurudwara at 5.00 a.m. She used to
come from the Gurudwara after two hours
come back. I was sleeping straight way.
When I received injury I was sleeping at
th
that time. I am studying in 5 class. First I
received injury on my left arm. It is wrong to
suggest that there is no visible injury mark
on my left arm. I became unconscious when
I received first injury on my left arm. On that
day my nani came back from Gurudwara
at 6.00 a.m. By that time, accused has fled
away from the spot. My nani came there
after half an hour of the occurrence. It is
wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely.
Dated: 25.10.2018
[Emphasis is mine]

34. While we have no qualms about the competency of
PW17 on the account of being a child witness, the
key inference that has to be drawn by the above
testimony is that the injured witness did not
actually ‘witness’ the incident. In his cross-
examination, he admits that he was sleeping
throughout the incident. He states that he did not
see the appellant as he was half-asleep and
specifically states that he did not see the appellant
inflicting injuries on the deceased persons.
Therefore, even if PW17’s testimony is treated as
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 50 of 56


completely reliable, it is clear that his statement
cannot be considered as incriminating against the
appellant for the lack of having witnessed the
actual incident.
35. Having examined the above testimonies in
thorough detail, it becomes evident that once PW1
and PW2’s statements are discarded for absence of
reliability, the prosecution case effectively loses its
vertebrae and comes crumbling down to its feet.

36. Further, to make matters even worse for the
prosecution, there are key deficiencies in the
investigation and the evidentiary value of the
alleged recoveries remains questionable. Neither
the arrest of the accused nor the alleged recovery
of the blood-stained clothes and the weapon
(purportedly based on the disclosure statement of
the accused) is supported by any independent
witness. While the recovery may not be wholly
discarded due to the lack of a supporting witness,
however, it undoubtedly becomes highly
questionable, especially with the factum of long
delay of two months in the discovery being effected.
37. Additionally, it is quite conspicuous that the
investigating agency took minimum pains to link
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 51 of 56


the discovered articles to the incident or the
deceased persons through forensic evidence or
otherwise. The only forensic evidence in this case
is the report of the chemical analysis which merely
states that the blood found on the exhibits is
opined to be of human origin. The same is evidently
not sufficient to link the articles to the deceased or
the specific offence. In any case, the report has
admittedly not been formally exhibited before the
Court. With regard to the alleged weapon of offence,
it has been deposed by PW22–Karnail Singh
(SHO/IO) that the weapon was misplaced at a later
stage and no forensic analysis placed before the
Court. It clearly and amply reflects the regard that
has been held due towards investigative protocols
in the instant case and is utterly deplorable.
38. Consequently, a lot of focus has been laid by
prosecution as well as by the Courts below on the
alleged motive that led to the commission of the
crime. However, as a result of the above analysis,
when there remains practically nothing to link the
accused-appellant to the scene of the crime, an
alleged monetary dispute between the parties shall
not by itself aid the prosecution case enough to
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 52 of 56


frame the accused for a charge of murder on
multiple counts. The Trial Court has held that
dacoity or commission of offence by a stranger
party has to be ruled out due to the gruesome
nature of the crime. However, merely lack of an
alternative plausible explanation to the incident
cannot serve as enough evidence in itself to send a
man to the gallows, whose guilt otherwise remains
unestablished.

39. Similarly, the High Court has employed Section
106 of the Evidence Act to draw an adverse
inference against the accused with regard to his
silence surrounding the injuries sustained by him
on the day of the incident which led him to getting
admitted in the hospital later on the same day and
caused consequent amputation of his left arm. The
High Court has concluded that in the absence of
any alternative explanation by the accused, it has
to be presumed that the said injuries were a result
of the resistance that the accused must have faced
during the commission of the crime earlier in the
day. However, we believe that given the fact that
the prosecution has not been able to establish the
presence of accused at the site of crime through
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 53 of 56


direct, circumstantial, oral or forensic evidence,
taking recourse to Section 106 of the Evidence Act
and employ it against the accused in a detrimental
manner in the absence of any foundational facts,
shall lead to a severe and unwarranted application
of the provision.

40. Further, neither PW1 nor PW2, in his/her
statement, has stated anything about the accused
of having suffered an arm injury while he was
allegedly spotted at the crime scene. In such
circumstances, no opportunity arises to shift the
burden of proof on the appellant so as to
reasonably explain his injury. No adverse inference
can be drawn thereby.
41. As such, we are constrained to conclude that the
above discussed deficiencies which include, (a)
contradictions and embellishments in key
eyewitness testimonies, (b) failure to conclusively
link material objects to the crime, and (c)
investigative lapses leading to gaps in the
evidentiary chain – all these factors highlight the
failure of the prosecution in meeting the legal
threshold for a conviction.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 54 of 56



42. In matters such as the instant one, the burden on
prosecution is to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that it is the appellant and appellant alone who has
committed the crime. It is settled law that in order
to record conviction based on ocular evidence, their
testimonies have to be completely credible and
trustworthy.
43. However, in the present matter, where there are
major contradictions in the testimonies of key
prosecution witnesses accompanied by glaring
investigative defects, it cannot be said that the
prosecution has established the charge beyond
reasonable doubt. At the cost of repetition, we must
state that the standard of proof is an absolutely
strict one and cannot be faltered with. When at
stake are human lives and the cost is blood, the
matter needs to be dealt with utmost sincerity.
Therefore, given the facts and circumstances of the
case and in light of the above discussion, we cannot
bring ourselves to hold the accused-appellant
guilty of the charged offence as his guilt has not
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
44. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned judgment and final order dated
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 55 of 56


04.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana, as well as the judgment dated
29.02.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Kapurthala, are hereby quashed and set
aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the offences
charged with. The appellant has undergone
incarceration for more than eleven years, and it is
accordingly ordered to release him forthwith unless
he is required in connection with any other case.

45. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.


…………..........................J.
[VIKRAM NATH]

………….........................J.
[SANJAY KAROL]

………….........................J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]


NEW DELHI

JULY 16, 2025

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689/2024 Page 56 of 56