Holding

The prosecution did not establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the convictions and death sentence are quashed.

Summary

Baljinder Kumar, accused of murdering his wife, two children and sister‑in‑law, was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to death under Sections 302, 308 and 325 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction, relying mainly on the testimonies of three witnesses despite contradictions and lack of forensic linkage. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the credibility of the witnesses, finding material discrepancies, embellishments, and no independent corroboration, and noted serious investigative lapses and the improper use of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to draw adverse inference from the appellant's silence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's presence at the crime scene beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted after more than eleven years of incarceration.

Issues considered

The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 302, 308 and 325 IPC.
Whether the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW17 are reliable and sufficient to constitute ocular evidence.
Whether Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be invoked to draw an adverse inference against the accused in the absence of any foundational facts.
Whether the alleged motive of a monetary dispute is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction.
Whether the recovery of blood‑stained clothes and the weapon, without independent corroboration, can be linked to the crime.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 293
Evidence Act, 1872s. 106, s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 308, s. 325

Headnote

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 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 –

Subjects

MurderMurder of four members of a familyWifeTwo childrenSister‑in‑lawGuilt of accused not proved beyond a reasonable doubtCharges not proved beyond reasonable doubtPresence of accused at the site of crime not establishedGaps in the evidentiary chainMajor contradictions and embellishments in the testimonies of key prosecution witnessesGlaring investigative defects/lapsesMaterial discrepancies in testimoniesTestimonies not to be relied uponOmissionsContradiction in material particularsDifferent versions of the same set of eventsAccused not linked to the scene of the crimeSilence surrounding the injuries sustained by accusedAmputation of left armNo adverse inference can be drawnBurden of proof not shifted on the accusedAbsence of motiveAlleged monetary disputeConviction based on ocular evidenceEyewitnessChild witnessDeath sentenceNon‑applicability of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrineShoddy investigationPoorly conducted trialJudicial deprecationAccused acquitted

Judgment

[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 – Appellant-
accused 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 sister-
in-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 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 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 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.
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
1088 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1089

Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab

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 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 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
1090 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1091

Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab

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 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 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
1092 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 10-15 minutes to reach the gurudwara if one goes
on foot. My daughter Seema came to my house along-
with 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1093

Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab

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 state-
ments 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 occurrence is not visible. Our bathroom and toilet are
separate. I heard the noise while sitting in the bath-
room 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 oc-
currence. 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]
1094 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1095

Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab

as a 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 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 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.
1096 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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:
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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1097

Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab

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.

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.
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
1098 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 of the witness.4 Whereas contradiction in the statement
of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance
in evidence will not make the prosecution’s case doubtful.5 Material
discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a
normal person.6 Moreover, when witness testimonies exhibit significant
contradictions between their initial statements and trial depositions,
they cannot be relied upon unless independently corroborated.7
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,

4 Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457
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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1099

Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab

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.
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 –
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 address and now
studying in 5th 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
1100 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
that time. I am studying in 5th 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 completely
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1101

Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab

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 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 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
1102 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
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.
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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1103

Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab

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 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.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey