# Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 856
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-07-16
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/baljinder-kumar-kala-v-state-of-punjab-38446
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Whether the courts below erred in convicting the appellant for
offences u/ss.302, 308 and 325, Penal Code, 1860 and imposing
death sentence on him, when the prosecution had failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnotes†
Evidence - Charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt -
Courts below strongly relying upon the testimonies of three
witnesses PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (alleged eyewitness)
and PW17 (injured child witness), convicted the appellant
for the murder of his wife, two children and sister-in-law and
imposed death sentence - Sustainability:
Held: Impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Trial
Court are quashed and set aside - In order to record conviction
based on ocular evidence, the testimonies have to be completely
credible and trustworthy - However, in the present case, there are
major contradictions and embellishments in the testimonies of key
prosecution witnesses accompanied by glaring investigative defects/
lapses leading to gaps in the evidentiary chain - Nothing to link the
appellant to the scene of the crime - Prosecution failed to establish
the charges beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant acquitted - Penal
Code, 1860 - ss.302, 308 and 325. [Paras 38, 41, 43, 44]
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.106 - Adverse inference, when
cannot be drawn - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 308 and 325 -
Appellant-accused was convicted for the murder of his wife,
two children and sister-in-law - High Court drew adverse
inference against the accused as regards his silence and
absence of any alternative explanation about the injuries
sustained by him on the day of the incident which led him to
* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1071
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
getting admitted in the hospital later on the same day causing
consequent amputation of his left arm, and presumed that
the said injuries were a result of the resistance that he must
have faced during the commission of the crime earlier in the
day - Sustainability:
Held: Prosecution has not been able to establish the presence of
accused at the site of crime through direct, circumstantial, oral or
forensic evidence thus, taking recourse to s.106 and employing
it against the accused in a detrimental manner in the absence of
any foundational facts, is unwarranted - Neither PW1 nor PW2,
in their statement stated anything about the accused of having
suffered an arm injury while he was allegedly spotted at the crime
scene - Therefore, no opportunity arises to shift the burden of
proof on the appellant so as to reasonably explain his injury and
thereby, no adverse inference can be drawn. [Para 39]
Evidence - Contradictions in testimonies, material
discrepancies - Testimonies not to be relied upon - Appellantaccused was convicted for the murder of his wife, two children
and sister-in-law, relying upon the testimonies of three
witnesses PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (alleged eyewitness)
and PW17 (injured child witness):
Held: Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in
material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the
witness - Material discrepancies are those which are not normal
and not expected of a normal person - When witness testimonies
exhibit significant contradictions between their initial statements and
trial depositions, they cannot be relied upon unless independently
corroborated - In the present case, the contradictions in prosecution
witnesses' testimonies are major ones and carve a gaping hole
in the prosecution story altogether - 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 - There are obvious
inconsistencies in the depositions of the main witnesses indicating
deliberate embellishment and coaching, rendering these testimonies
unreliable - Therefore, no credence can be lent to the testimonies
of PW1 and PW2 and their account of being "eyewitness" to the
incident or having s

## Text

_Characters 0–39,833 of 74,360. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39833 for what follows._

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1070 : 2025 INSC 856
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala
v.
State of Punjab
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 2688-2689 of 2024)
16 July 2025
[Vikram Nath,* Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in convicting the appellant for
offences u/ss.302, 308 and 325, Penal Code, 1860 and imposing
death sentence on him, when the prosecution had failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnotes†
Evidence - Charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt -
Courts below strongly relying upon the testimonies of three
witnesses PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (alleged eyewitness)
and PW17 (injured child witness), convicted the appellant
for the murder of his wife, two children and sister-in-law and
imposed death sentence - Sustainability:
Held: Impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Trial
Court are quashed and set aside - In order to record conviction
based on ocular evidence, the testimonies have to be completely
credible and trustworthy - However, in the present case, there are
major contradictions and embellishments in the testimonies of key
prosecution witnesses accompanied by glaring investigative defects/
lapses leading to gaps in the evidentiary chain - Nothing to link the
appellant to the scene of the crime - Prosecution failed to establish
the charges beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant acquitted - Penal
Code, 1860 - ss.302, 308 and 325. [Paras 38, 41, 43, 44]
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.106 - Adverse inference, when
cannot be drawn - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 308 and 325 -
Appellant-accused was convicted for the murder of his wife,
two children and sister-in-law - High Court drew adverse
inference against the accused as regards his silence and
absence of any alternative explanation about the injuries
sustained by him on the day of the incident which led him to
* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1071
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
getting admitted in the hospital later on the same day causing
consequent amputation of his left arm, and presumed that
the said injuries were a result of the resistance that he must
have faced during the commission of the crime earlier in the
day - Sustainability:
Held: Prosecution has not been able to establish the presence of
accused at the site of crime through direct, circumstantial, oral or
forensic evidence thus, taking recourse to s.106 and employing
it against the accused in a detrimental manner in the absence of
any foundational facts, is unwarranted - Neither PW1 nor PW2,
in their statement stated anything about the accused of having
suffered an arm injury while he was allegedly spotted at the crime
scene - Therefore, no opportunity arises to shift the burden of
proof on the appellant so as to reasonably explain his injury and
thereby, no adverse inference can be drawn. [Para 39]
Evidence - Contradictions in testimonies, material
discrepancies - Testimonies not to be relied upon - Appellantaccused was convicted for the murder of his wife, two children
and sister-in-law, relying upon the testimonies of three
witnesses PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (alleged eyewitness)
and PW17 (injured child witness):
Held: Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in
material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the
witness - Material discrepancies are those which are not normal
and not expected of a normal person - When witness testimonies
exhibit significant contradictions between their initial statements and
trial depositions, they cannot be relied upon unless independently
corroborated - In the present case, the contradictions in prosecution
witnesses' testimonies are major ones and carve a gaping hole
in the prosecution story altogether - 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 - There are obvious
inconsistencies in the depositions of the main witnesses indicating
deliberate embellishment and coaching, rendering these testimonies
unreliable - Therefore, 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 is discarded - Statements
of PW1 and PW2 inspire no confidence and their presence at the
scene of occurrence is disbelieved - Further, the testimony of
1072
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
PW17 (child witness) also cannot be considered as incriminating
against the appellant for the lack of having witnessed the actual
incident. [Paras 30-34]
Evidence - Motive - Absence of - Appellant-accused was
convicted for the murder of his wife, two children and sisterin-law due to an alleged monetary dispute:
Held: When there is nothing to link the appellant to the scene of
the crime, an alleged monetary dispute between the parties shall
not by itself aid the prosecution case enough to frame the accused
for a charge of murder on multiple counts - Trial Court 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 is not
enough evidence in itself to send a man to the gallows, whose
guilt otherwise remains unestablished. [Para 38]
Evidence - Alleged recoveries - Evidentiary value,
questionable - Failure to conclusively link material objects
to the crime:
Held: 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 - Though the recovery may not be wholly
discarded due to the lack of a supporting witness, however, it
becomes highly questionable, especially with the factum of long
delay of two months in the discovery being effected - Furthermore,
the investigating agency took minimum pains to link the discovered
articles to the incident or the deceased persons through forensic
evidence or otherwise. [Paras 36, 37]
Judicial Deprecation - Shoddy investigation; poorly conducted
trial - Appellant-accused was convicted for the murder of
his wife, two children and sister-in-law and was sentenced
to death by the Trial Court holding the case to be rarest of
rare - High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the
death sentence - Appellant has undergone incarceration for
more than eleven years - Acquitted by Supreme Court holding
that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond
reasonable doubt - Approach of investigating agencies and
courts below, deprecated - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 308
and 325. [Para 1]
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1073
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
Case Law Cited
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
[2000] Supp. 3 SCR 104 : (2000) 8 SCC 457; State of Himachal
Pradesh v. Lekh Raj [1999] Supp. 4 SCR 286 : (2000) 1 SCC
247; State of Rajasthan v. Kalki & Anr. [1981] 3 SCR 504 : (1981)
2 SCC 752; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] 1 SCR
981 : AIR 1957 SC 614 - referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Murder; Murder of four members of a family; Wife; Two children;
Sister-in-law; Guilt of accused not proved beyond a reasonable
doubt; Charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt; Presence of
accused at the site of crime not established; Gaps in the evidentiary
chain; Major contradictions and embellishments in the testimonies
of key prosecution witnesses; Glaring investigative defects/lapses;
Material discrepancies in testimonies; Testimonies not to be relied
upon; Omissions; Contradiction in material particulars; Different
versions of the same set of events; Accused not linked to the scene
of the crime; Silence surrounding the injuries sustained by accused;
On the day of the incident; Amputation of left arm; No alternative
explanation about the injuries sustained; No adverse inference can
be drawn; Burden of proof not shifted on the accused; Absence
of motive; Alleged motive; Alleged monetary dispute; Conviction
based on ocular evidence; Alleged eyewitness; Child witness; Death
sentence; Inconsistencies and lack of corroboration; Lack of an
alternative plausible explanation; Alleged recoveries; Evidentiary
value questionable; Alleged recovery of the blood-stained clothes
and the weapon not supported by independent witness; Alleged
weapon of offence; Shoddy investigation; Poorly conducted trial;
Judicial deprecation; Accused acquitted; Headline in the local papers;
Sensation; Pressure on the investigating agencies to find the culprit.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
2688-2689 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2024 by the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in MRC No. 1 of 2020
in CRAD No. 323 of 2020
1074
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sakshi Jain, Yash S. Vijay,
Deepak Sharma, Ms. Kms Sivani, Shikhar Aggarwal.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Siddhant Sharma, Bhuvnesh, Prafull Bhardwaj.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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' account points towards. It is but
natural that the 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. SC/64/2014, under Sections 302, 308 and
325 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601.
1
IPC, hereinafter.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1075
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
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),
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. 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.
1076
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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 -
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1077
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
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.
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 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
1078
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 the Indian Evidence Act, 18722 does
not lay down that the statement made to police official 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 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)
2
Evidence Act
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1079
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
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.
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.
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
1080
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 Procedure, 19733. 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 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,
2/3rd of the amount was to be paid as compensation to the victim
3
Cr.P.C.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1081
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
PW2-Manjit Kaur as well as injured persons namely Harry and Om
Prakash, in equal proportions.
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 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 out glaring lapse on the part of
the investigating agency.
1082
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
16. However, the High Court granted unblemished acceptance to PW2Manjit 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 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 -
21. It is in the above background that the impugned judgment is being
assailed before us by the accused-appellant.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1083
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
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 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.
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.
1084
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
Statement of Vijay Kumar son of Late Daulat Ram, caste
Adharmi, R/o Kot Rani, PS Satnampura, Phagwara, aged
28 years.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1085
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
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 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
1086
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1087
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
Manjit Kaur had gone to Gurudwara at 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 abovesaid. 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.
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.