KHUSHWINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

446                      [2019]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   3 S.C.R. 446               [2019] 3 S.C.R.


A                          KHUSHWINDER SINGH
                                       v.
                             STATE OF PUNJAB
                   (Criminal Appeal Nos.1433-1434 of 2014)
B                              MARCH 05, 2019
        [A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
            Penal Code, 1860:
             ss. 364, 302, 307 and 380 – Prosecution under – Murder of
C     6 persons – By kidnapping them and drugging them with sleeping
      tablets and then drowning them in a canal – Conviction by courts
      below – Death sentence imposed – On appeal, held: The prosecution
      has proved the case against the accused by cogent evidence – The
      case is proved by eye-witness, independent witness and the witness
      before whom the accused made extra-judicial confession – The
D
      witnesses are trustworthy and reliable – There are no material
      contradiction which may affect the prosecution case – The accused
      was last seen together with three of the deceased – Recovery of
      drug at the instance of the accused is proved – Recovery of cash
      and ornaments and key of the house of the deceased from the house
E     of the accused at his instance prove the motive for the murder – The
      findings recorded by courts below are on appreciation of evidence,
      which are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record
      – Therefore, conviction is affirmed – The accused committed the
      murder of 6 innocent persons with extreme brutality in a planned
      manner – On striking a balance between the aggravating and
F
      mitigating circumstances, aggravating circumstances tilt in favour
      of capital punishment – Therefore, capital punishment/death
      sentence does not warrant any interference and is upheld – Sentence/
      Sentencing – Death Sentence.
            Dismissing the appeals, the Court
G
            HELD: 1.1 The prosecution has proved the case against
      the accused by leading cogent evidence and examining PW-5,
      the eye-witness; PW-14, an employee of the canal department,
      who is an independent witness to whom PW-5 narrated the entire

H
                                     446
        KHUSHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                         447


occurrence which was first in time; PW-8 the ex-Sarpanch; PW-9       A
before whom extra-judicial confession was made and also by
examining several police witnesses, including PW-7, the
investigating officer. By and large, these witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution. [Para 9.4] [461-E-F]
       1.2 The accused was last seen together with deceased          B
husband, mother and brother of PW5 on 25/26.06.2012 at about
2.30 a.m. Thereafter, the aforesaid three persons were not seen
alive by anyone. The deposition of PW-5 having seen the accused
last together with the aforesaid three persons, has been
established and proved by the prosecution by leading cogent
evidence and examining PW-8, the ex-Sarpanch. [Para 9.3]             C
[461-D]
      1.3 Minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis
and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of
trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires
confidence in the mind of the court. Every omission cannot take      D
place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions,
inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the
core of prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground
to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create
a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a      E
witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which
materially affect the case of prosecution but not every
contradiction or omission. In the present case, the witnesses
who were examined by the prosecution are trustworthy and
reliable. There are no material contradictions which may affect
the case of the prosecution. PW-5 is the eye-witness and also the    F
victim. She has been fully cross-examined by the defence. But
the defence has not brought out anything from her cross-
examination which may affect the case of the prosecution and/or
which may doubt her trustworthiness. PW-14 is an independent
witness to whom the occurrence was narrated by PW-5. Even            G
PW-8 and PW-9 are also independent witnesses. Nothing has
been alleged against them. [Paras 10 and 11] [461-H; 462-A-E]
      Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2007) 11 SCC 195:
      [2007] 5 SCR 1049 – relied on.
                                                                     H
448           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 3 S.C.R.


A           1.4 There are also recoveries of cash and ornaments from
      the house of the accused which were recovered at the instance
      of the accused. The recoveries regarding memos etc. have been
      proved by the prosecution. Even the keys of the house of the
      victims were found from the house of the accused. The ornaments
      and the cash have been identified by PW-5. Merely because,
B
      earlier there might have been search at the house of the accused
      and nothing was found at that time, cannot be a ground to discard
      the recoveries made subsequently which, as such, were made at
      the instance of the accused himself. The accused is the best
      person to know where he kept the ornaments/cash which he had
C     taken from the house of the victims. There is no reason to doubt
      the recoveries. [Para 12] [462-F-H; 463-A]
            1.5 The prosecution has been successful in proving the
      motive for the accused to commit the offence and to do away with
      the entire family, which is supported by the recoveries of cash
D     and ornaments from the house of the accused. [Para 12.1]
      [463-B]
            1.6 Even the recoveries of Anzilum 0.5mg tablets from the
      Maruti car belonging to the accused has been established and
      proved. Therefore, the prosecution case that he had given pills
E     to the deceased persons and, thereafter, killed them has been
      established. Non-detection of the poison in the contents would
      not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Where the pills are
      given in larger number, in that case only, the poison would be
      detected. [Para 12.2] [463-B-C]

F           1.7 The findings recorded by the trial court and confirmed
      by the High Court are on appreciation of the evidence, which are
      neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. The
      High Court has rightly confirmed the conviction of the accused
      for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC having killed/
      committing the murder of six persons. [Para 13] [463-D-E]
G
           2.1 So far as the capital punishment imposed by the courts
      below is concerned, the counsel of the accused is not in a position
      to point out any mitigating circumstance which warrants
      commutation of death sentence to the life imprisonment. The

H
        KHUSHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                         449


accused has killed six innocent persons, out of which two were       A
minors – below 10 years of age. Almost, all the family members
of PW-5 were done to death in a diabolical and dastardly manner.
Only one person of the family of PW-5 could survive. The accused
has killed six innocent persons in a pre-planned manner. The
convict meticulously planned the time. He first kidnapped three
                                                                     B
persons by way of deception and took them to the canal and after
drugging them with sleeping tablets, pushed them in the canal at
a mid-night to ensure that the crime is not detected. That,
thereafter he killed another three persons in the second stage/
instalment. The case would fall in the category of the “rarest of
rare case” warranting death sentence/capital punishment. The         C
aggravating circumstances are in favour of the prosecution and
against the accused. Therefore, striking a balance between the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the aggravating
circumstance would tilt the balance in favour of the capital
punishment. [Para 14] [464-A-C]
                                                                     D
      Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1 :
      [2017] 6 SCR 1 – relied on.
       2.2 There is no alternative punishment suitable, except the
death sentence. The crime is committed with extremist brutality
and the collective conscious of the society would be shocked.        E
Therefore, the capital punishment/death sentence imposed by
the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court does not warrant
any interference by this Court. Therefore, the death sentence of
the accused is confirmed. [Para 14] [464-C-D]
      3. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High          F
Court dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and
order passed by the trial court convicting the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 307, 201 and 380
IPC is hereby confirmed. The conviction of the appellant-accused
for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and other
offences is hereby confirmed and the capital imprisonment/death      G
sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the
High Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for
having killed six persons is hereby confirmed. [Para 15]
[464-E-G]
                                                                     H
450            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 3 S.C.R.


A                              Case Law Reference
            [2007] 5 SCR 1049             relied on             Para 10
            [2017] 6 SCR 1                relied on             Para 14
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
B     Nos. 1433-1434 of 2014.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2013 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Murder Reference No. 3 of
      2013, Criminal Appeal No. CRA No. D-385-DB of 2013.
           Tripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowria, Rajesh Singh, Shuresh
C     Kumar Sharma, Parveen Kumar, Prafulla Kumar, Nitish Shekhar, Vishnu
      Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Mandakini Singh, Ms. Ashima Mandal,
      Advs. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
             M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
      impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2013 passed by the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Murder Reference No. 3 of
      2013 with Criminal Appeal No. D-385-DB of 2013, by which the High
      Court has affirmed the death penalty imposed by the learned Sessions
E     Court, by affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions
      Court, Fatehgarh Sahib dated 15.03.2013, consequently convicting the
      appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC,
      the original accused has preferred the present appeals.
             2. The case of the prosecution as per the statement of PW-5 –
F     Jasmeen Kaur – original Complainant was that she was married with
      Rupinder Singh S/o Jeet Singh of village Bhojewal in the year 2005.
      Two children, the elder son namely Jaskirat Singh, aged about seven
      years and a daughter namely Prabhsimran Kaur aged about six years
      were born from the said marriage. Since the atmosphere in the family of
G     the in-laws of the complainant was not good, complainant Jasmeen Kaur
      along with her husband and children had been living at her natal place at
      village Mukandpur for the last about six years prior to the occurrence.
      Gurinder Singh @ Babbu, brother of Jasmeen Kaur used to consume
      liquor in excess. He was dissuaded by the family from doing so and was
      also made to understand in this regard. Thereafter, Manjit Kaur, wife
H
         KHUSHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                451
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

of the accused Khushwinder Singh, R/o village Suhavi, Police Station         A
Khamanon, who is the daughter of maternal uncle of the complainant,
came to see her along with the accused. The latter informed the family
of the complainant that he knew one ‘Baba’ (holy man) who lives in
their area, who can make person get rid of their habit of drinking
permanently. The accused further informed that he also knew one travel
                                                                             B
agent, who could send Rupinder Singh, husband of the complainant,
abroad. Thereafter, the accused along starting visiting the house of the
complainant. About three months prior to the incident, the accused came
to the house of the complainant and informed that he had made
arrangements with an agent for sending Rupinder Singh to Canada. He
demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and the passport of Rupinder Singh. He also           C
informed that the remaining amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was to be paid on
getting visa. Thereupon, the family of the complainant pledged their gold
ornaments with the goldsmith and borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- which, along
with the passport of Rupinder Singh, were handed over to the accused.
The accused further informed the complainant’s family that the job would
                                                                             D
be done within two months. The accused further informed that he had
also got in touch with ‘Baba’ (holy man) to enable Gurinder Singh to
give up his habit of drinking and, for that purpose, the complainant’s
family would have to offer “Dhala” (offering certain pulses, rice etc. in
running water).
        2.1 On this, in the evening of 25.06.2012 at about 06.00 p.m., the   E
accused came to village Mukandpur to the house of the complainant in
his car and informed the family of the complainant that “Dhala” was to
be offered on the night at about 02.30 a.m. and, for this purpose, the
accused made Paramjit Kaur – mother, Gurinder Singh @ Babbu –
brother and Rupinder Singh – husband of complainant respectively to          F
accompany him. Gurinder Singh, father of the complainant, also
accompanied them as he was to pay obeisance at Gurudwara Rara
Sahib. Then, on 26.06.2012 at about 11.30 a.m. the accused came back
in his car to village Mukandpur and informed the complainant that Gurinder
Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Singh had been left with ‘Baba ji”.
In the evening, the complainant should accompany him to the ‘Baba”           G
for offering “Dhala”.
       2.2 On 26.06.2012 at about 6.30 p.m., the complainant Jasmeen
Kaur, along with her father Gurmail Singh, son Jaskirat Singh and daughter
Prabhsimran Kaur accompanied the accused in his Maruti car bearing
                                                                             H
452             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 3 S.C.R.


A     no. PB-10AM-9371. On the way, the accused informed that he had
      received a phone call from “Baba ji” that Gurinder Singh would
      permanently get rid of his drinking habit, but in turn Gurmail Singh, father
      of the complainant, would have to take a drink. On this, Gurmail Singh
      got into a fix, as he in fact never used to drink liquor, but he under
      compulsion agreed to consume liquor. Thereafter, on the way, the
B
      accused purchased a half liquor bottle and gave to Gurmail Singh, father
      of the complainant, for drinking. He gradually consumed the half liquor
      bottle. Thereafter, the accused took some rounds and got the
      complainant, her children and Gurmail Singh towards the canal ahead of
      Bassi Pathana, where he turned his car to towards the bridge of the
C     canal on its bank an informed the complainant that they were to first
      offer “Dhala”. On this, at about 09.30 p.m., complainant Jasmeen Kaur
      and her father Gurmail Singh got down from the car and the children
      kept sitting in the car. They came to the bank of the canal and when
      they were to offer “Dhala” in the running water, the accused pushed
      both of them in the canal and, on this, both of them fell in the canal.
D
      Jasmeen Kaur, however, fell on one side of the canal near the edge and
      she, therefore, started to save herself. At some considerable distance,
      she was able to catch an iron bar, which had been fixed in the canal and
      from there, she came out of the canal and by coming along the canal she
      disclosed the entire occurrence to the official of the canal department
E     who were present there. They further informed it to the parental family
      of the complainant at village Mukandpur. They, along with the
      complainant, also searched for her father and children, but she could not
      get to know anything about them. The place of occurrence was near
      the bridge of Bhakra canal of village Thablan.
F            2.3 The complainant had a firm belief that the accused by cheating
      their entire family on a false pretext had thrown her husband Rupinder
      Singh, her brother Gurinder Singh, mother Paramjit Kaur, son Jaskirat
      Singh and daughter Prabhsimran Kaur had been illegally detained
      somewhere or they had been thrown in the canal. The complainant further
      alleged that, along with her, her father Gurmail Singh was also thrown in
G     the canal by the accused and the accused had killed him so that his dead
      body may be untraceable. The complainant further informed in her
      statement that they had sold their land for Rs.37,00,000/- and that money
      was lying at their home and the accused only knew about it. The accused,
      therefore, had finished her entire family as he wanted to misappropriate
H
         KHUSHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                453
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the amount of Rs.37,00,000/-. The accused carried out this exercise by       A
keeping the entire family in deceit. The complainant requested that action
be taken against the accused and they be imparted justice. The
complainant had given her statement in the present of her brother Jang
Bahadur Singh. She had heard her statement and it was correct. She
signed her statement in Punjabi, which was affirmed by Jang Bahadur
                                                                             B
Singh and was attested by SI Shamsher Singh, SHO, Police Station Basi
Pathana.
       2.4 The said statement – Ex. P5 ibid of Jasmeen Kaur complainant
was recorded by Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) who read over and explained
the contents thereof to her and the complainant after admitting the
genuineness and correctness thereof, signed the same. Later, Shamsher        C
Singh, SI put his endorsement Ex.P9 thereon, to the effect that 27.06.2012
he had received a telephonic message in the police station that some
persons had been thrown in the canal. Thereupon, he accompanied by
other police officials visited the Bhakra main line near the bridge at
village Thablan, where several persons had gathered along the canal          D
bank. The complainant got her statement recorded. Endorsement Ex.P9
was completed on 27.06.2012 at 11.30 a.m. The statement was sent to
police station Bassi Pathana through Constable Sikander Singh. On the
basis of the said statement Ex.P5, formal FIR Ex.P10 for the offences
under Sections 302, 307 and 201 of the IPC was registered against the
accused.                                                                     E

       3. That, thereafter the Investigating Officer commenced the
investigation and recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses
and also collected the incriminating material. The Investigating Officer
set out for search of the accused and recorded the statement of one
Manjit Singh, resident of Village Nogawan, who was the Ex-Sarpanch           F
and informed the Investigating Officer that the accused came to him on
the morning of 27.06.2012 and told him that he had thrown his relations
Gurinder Singh, Rupinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur, Gurmail Singh,
Prabhsimran Kaur, Jasmeen Kaur and Jaskirat Singh in the Bakhra Canal.
That, thereafter the Investigating Officer arrested the accused. On          G
being interrogated, he made some disclosers to the police, including that
he had stolen Rs.36,70,000/- from the house of Gurmail Singh and he
had concealed the money in his house in a bag which was lying in the
almirah of his house. His disclosure statement was recorded, signed by
the accused and witnessed by ASI Kaur Singh. It was attested by
                                                                             H
454            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 3 S.C.R.


A     Shamsher Singh S.I. The accused then accompanied the police to his
      house and led them to the almirah from where Rs.36,70,000/- contained
      in a bag were recovered. Recovery memo was prepared. Thereafter,
      the investigating team visited the place of incident where the victims
      were thrown in the canal. A supplementary statement of the complainant
      was recorded wherein she disclosed the theft of her ornaments and
B
      money. That, one by one, the dead bodies of the victims were found.
      The Investigating Officer collected the medical evidence. The autopsy
      on the dead bodies of the victims was done by the concerned doctors.
      During the course of the investigation and on the basis of the statement
      made by the accused during interrogation, the Chappals and shoes of
C     the victims were found/recovered. That, during interrogation, the
      appellant made a statement that on 26.06.2012 in the morning, he
      administered sleeping pills Anzilum 05 along with “mishri” (Sugar) to
      Rupinder Singh, Gurinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur before offering
      “Dhala” and empty strips lying in the envelope were kept concealed
      underneath the driver seat of a Maruti car and he could get those
D
      recovered. His disclosure statement was recorded, that was signed by
      him and witnessed by ASI Harjit Singh and HC Balbir Singh. That,
      thereafter the Investigating officer recovered those strips from the car
      parked in the police station. The Investigating Officer prepared parcel
      of this article and sealed the same.
E            4. That, on 01.08.2012, the complainant Jasmeen Kaur came at
      the police station and asked for recording her statement under Section
      164 CrPC She was taken to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
      Fatehgarh Sahib, where the Investigating Officer moved an application
      for recording the statement of the complainant Jasmeen Kaur under
F     Section 164 CrPC. Her statement was recorded by the learned Chief
      Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib.
             4.1 After completion of the investigation, the Station House Officer
      of the Police Station, Bassi Pathana filed the police report under Section
      173 CrPC before the learned Magistrate to the effect that the Appellant
G     accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201
      and 307 of the IPC.
            4.2 On presentation of the police report, the copies of the
      documents, as required under Section 207 CrPC, were furnished to the
      accused. The case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the
H     learned Sessions Court vide order dated 29.09.2012 as the offences
         KHUSHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                               455
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

were exclusively triable by the Court of Session. That the learned          A
Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib framed the charge against the accused
for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 264, 302,
201 and 380 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial and therefore he came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for
the aforesaid offences.
                                                                            B
       4.3 To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution led
oral as well as the documentary evidence. The prime witnesses examined
by the prosecution are as under:
                 PW-5                             Complainant
            JASMEEN KAUR                                                    C
                 PW-7                                  SI
           SHAMSHER SINGH
                 PW-8                           EX-SARPANCH
            JANG BAHADUR                     (of village Mukandpur)
                 PW-11                                 ASI
              KAUR SINGH
                 PW-14                      REGULATION BELDAR,              D
            RAJINDER SINGH                 Punjab Irrigation Department


      Through the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution also brought on
record the incriminating material against the accused.
       5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the   E
appellant-accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC and the
substance of the evidence appearing against him was put to him. He
denied the allegations of the prosecution. He pleaded innocence and the
false implication in the case. He also further stated that Gurinder Singh
@ Babbu, brother of the complainant Jasmeen Kaur was addicted to            F
alcohol and therefore Jasmeen Kaur was staying with her parents. That
her entire family was under tension. That her brother Gurinder Singh
under the influence of liquor threw the entire family in the canal and
later on Gurinder Singh commit suicide. It was stated that Jasmeen
Kaur made a false complaint to the police to save herself.
                                                                            G
      5.1 The appellant-accused was called upon to enter in defence,
but he closed the same without examining any defence witness.
      6. After hearing both sides, as also after appreciating the entire
evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, learned Sessions
Court convicted the appellant-accused for offences punishable under
                                                                            H
456            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 3 S.C.R.


A     Sections 302, 307, 364, 201 and 380 of the IPC. That the learned Sessions
      Court imposed the death sentence for the offence punishable under
      Section 302 IPC. Learned Sessions Court also imposed other punishments
      for the other offences for which he was convicted. Learned Sessions
      Court also passed an order that all the sentences to run consequently.
      The accused made a reference to the High Court which was numbered
B
      as Murder Reference No. 3 of 2013. The accused also preferred an
      appeal before the High Court challenging the judgment and order passed
      by the learned Sessions Court convicting him for the aforesaid offences.
            6.1 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has, on
      re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and by a well-reasoned
C     judgment, has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the
      learned Sessions Court, including the death sentence. Hence, the present
      appeals before this Court.
             7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-
      accused has vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances
D     of the case, both the learned Sessions Court as well as the High Court
      have materially erred in holding the appellant-accused guilty for the
      aforesaid offences.
            7.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
      on behalf of the appellant-accused that the High Court has not properly
E     appreciated and/or considered and/or re-appreciated the entire evidence
      on record while confirming the findings recorded by the learned Sessions
      Court holding the appellant-accused guilty for having committed the
      murder of six persons.
             7.2 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
F     on behalf of the appellant-accused that the High Court has not properly
      appreciated and/or considered the fact that it is a case of material
      contradictions, more particularly, the depositions of PW-5 and the other
      witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that there are
      material contradictions in the depositions of PW-5 and other prosecution
G     witnesses with respect to the registration of the FIR and the arrival of
      the police at the spot and, more particularly, the time at which the police
      reached the spot. For the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the appellant-accused has taken us through the depositions of
      PW-5, PW-14, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-11.

H
         KHUSHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                457
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       7.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on       A
behalf of the appellant-accused that there are material contradictions in
the oral evidence between PW-5, PW-7, PW-8, PW-11, PW-14 and
PW-17 which shall weaken the prosecution case and therefore the same
benefit must go to the accused as it can be said that the prosecution has
failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
                                                                             B
       7.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-accused that it is a case of planting of false
witnesses; planting of recoveries (cash and keys disclosure statement
under Section 37 of the Evidence Act of the accused and the memo of
recovery of cash and keys) as there are material contradictions between
PW-5, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-11.                                                  C
       7.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-accused that the recovery of cash and keys has
been planted by the prosecution. It is submitted that, in the cross-
examination of PW-7, SI Sharsher Singh has categorically stated that
before 02.07.2012 the accused had not disclosed as to where he had           D
kept concealed the money. It is submitted that in the cross-examination
PW-7 has stated that during remand the house of the accused was
searched for three times. It is submitted that, despite the above, nothing
was found from the house of the accused when it was searched earlier.
       7.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
                                                                             E
behalf of the appellant-accused that it is also a case of planting of
recoveries (ornaments disclosure statement under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act of Harjit Singh, ASI and Head Constable Balwinder Singh)
as there are material contradictions between PW-5, PW-7, PW-9 and
PW-11. It is submitted that though PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9 stated with
respect to the recovery of ornaments from the Petti lying at the house of    F
the accused, in the entire Chief and in cross-examination, PW-11 nowhere
tells about the recovery of ornaments from anywhere at any point of
time.
       7.7 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-accused that even it is a case of planting of        G
recovery of Anzilum 0.5mg tablets, memo of disclosure of statement
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of ASI Harjit Singh and Head
Constable Balbir Singh and the recovery memo of six empty strips of
tablets Anzilum 0.5 mg tablets. It is submitted that there are material
contradictions on the aforesaid recoveries.
                                                                             H
458             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2019] 3 S.C.R.


A            7.8 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the appellant-accused that the strips of the tablets were
      recovered from the Maruti car which was kept parked in the police
      station. It is submitted that, therefore, there are all possibilities of planting
      of recovery of Anzilum 0.5 mg tables. It is submitted that the strips
      were planted later on to show the accused might have intoxicated the
B
      victims.
             7.9 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the appellant-accused that, in the report of the chemical analyser
      Ex.P-44, no poison has been detected in the contents of Ex.I to V. It is
C     submitted that no poison was detected in the contents sent to the chemical
      analyser. It is submitted that, in any case, the contents of the Anzilum
      tablets cannot be said to be poisonous.
            7.10 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the appellant-accused that motive attributed by PW-5 and the
D     prosecution for the accused to commit the offences and to kill the family
      members of PW-5 is not at all believable. It is prayed therefore to
      acquit the accused for the offences for which he has been convicted.
             7.11 In the alternative, it is submitted by the learned counsel
      appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused that this is not a case of
E     capital punishment and, therefore, without prejudice to his submissions
      made hereinabove, it is prayed to commute the death sentence to life
      imprisonment.
            8. The present appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned
      counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
F
             8.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
      on behalf of the State. It is submitted that, in the present case, the
      prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused beyond
      reasonable doubt. It is submitted that on appreciation and re-appreciation
      of the entire evidence on record, both the learned Sessions Court as
G     well as the High Court have rightly held the accused guilty for having
      killed the six persons. It is submitted that therefore the findings recorded
      by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court are on
      appreciation of the evidence, which are neither perverse nor contrary to
      the materials on record.
H
         KHUSHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                 459
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       8.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on        A
behalf of the State that the present case of the prosecution is based on
the eye-witness of the complainant PW-5 Jasmeen Kaur, which is also a
substantial evidence and the evidence of last seen.
       8.3 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State that, in the present case, PW-5 is the unfortunate     B
eye-witness who has seen her entire family being killed by the accused.
It is submitted that she is the witness who has seen the accused last
seen with the deceased. It is submitted that PW-5 is the witness to the
deceased Gurinder Singh – brother, mother Paramjit Kaur and husband
Rupinder Singh leaving in the company of the accused on 25/26.06.2012
at about 2.30 am and thereafter these three persons were not seen alive       C
by anyone. Rather dead body of Gurinder Singh was found by the police
on 29.6.2012. It is submitted that, therefore, the prosecution has been
successful in proving the accused last seen together with the deceased
Gurinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Singh.
       8.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on        D
behalf of the State that on 26.06.2012, the complainant PW-5 along with
her father Gurmail Singh and her two children aged seven and eight
years respectively left in the car of the accused for offering prayer in
the running water of Bhakra main canal near village Thablan bridge.
It is submitted that, as stated by PW-5 in her deposition, at about
9.30 p.m., when PW-5 along with her father came out of the car to offer       E
prayer in the running water while her children kept sitting in the car, the
accused pushed PW-5 and her father in the canal. However, PW-5
came out of the canal with the help of an iron bar in the canal. PW-5
immediately narrated the occurrence to some employees of canal
department present there – PW-4 Rajinder Singh.                               F
       8.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State that the fact that PW-5, Gurmail Singh and her two
children aged seven and eight years respectively were with the accused
in the Maruti car, has been corroborated by PW-8 Jang Bahadur.
       8.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on        G
behalf of the State that, as such, there are no material contradictions on
the registration of the FIR and arrival of the police on the spot, as
contended/submitted on behalf of the accused. It is submitted that
PW-5 and PW-7 have fully supported each other on the police arriving
at the spot and the registration of the FIR.
                                                                              H
460             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 3 S.C.R.


A           8.7 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the State that, in the present case, as such, there are recoveries
      of money and ornaments which have been recovered from the house of
      the accused. It is submitted that recoveries were done at the instance
      of the accused himself. It is also submitted that the recovery of the
      ornaments and cash has been established and proved by the prosecution
B
      beyond doubt.
             8.8 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the State that even the recovery of Anzilum 0.5mg tablets
      from the Maruti car of the accused has been established and proved by
      the prosecution by leading cogent evidence.
C
             8.9 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the State that, in the present case, even the motive has been
      proved beyond all doubts that the crime is committed for theft of
      Rs.37,00,000/- and ornaments and that the accused planned meticulously
      to wipe out the entire family. It is submitted that as the accused was
D     aware that he will not be able to kill all the seven members of the family
      at one time and, therefore, he took them in two stages and killed them in
      two instalments. It is submitted that, therefore, both the Courts below
      have rightly held the accused guilty for having killed six persons out of
      seven members of a single family and has rightly imposed the capital
E     punishment.
             8.10 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the State that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and
      the manner in which the accused killed six innocent persons, out of seven
      members of a family, and that too, in a pre-planned manner and in two
F     instalments, the aggravating circumstances are in favour of the capital
      punishment. Therefore, it is prayed to confirm the capital punishment/
      death sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed
      by the impugned judgment of the High Court.
             9. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
G     parties at length. We have scanned the entire evidence on record, both
      oral as well as documentary evidence. We have minutely considered
      and gone through the entire evidence on record, as it is a case of capital
      punishment and death penalty awarded by the Courts below.
            9.1 Having heard the counsel for the respective parties and having
      scanned/gone through the entire evidence on record, and the findings
H
         KHUSHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                  461
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

recorded by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court,        A
we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions
Court and confirmed by the High Court are on appreciation of the
evidence, which are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on
record.
       9.2 It is required to be noted that, in the present case, six persons   B
out of seven members of a family have been killed by the accused. It is
required to be noted that even PW-5 was also thrown into the canal by
the accused along with her father Gurmail Singh and her two children
aged seven and eight years. However, she could survive and come out
of the canal with the help of an iron bar in the canal. Therefore, she is
the eye-witness to the incident of having pushed along with Gurmail            C
Singh into the canal.
       9.3 The accused was last seen together with the deceased Gurinder
Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Singh on 25/26.06.2012 at about
2.30 a.m. That, thereafter, the aforesaid three persons were not seen
alive by anyone. That the dead body of Gurinder Singh was found by             D
the police on 29.06.2012. The deposition of PW-5 having seen the accused
last together with the aforesaid three persons, has been established and
proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence and examining
PW-8 Jang Bahadur, ex-Sarpanch of village Mukandpur.
       9.4 The prosecution has proved the case against the accused by          E
leading cogent evidence and examining PW-5, the eye-witness; PW-14,
an employee of the canal department, who is an independent witness to
whom PW-5 narrated the entire occurrence which was first in time;
PW-8 the ex-Sarpanch; PW-9 Manjit Singh before whom extra-judicial
confession was made and also by examining several police witnesses,            F
including PW-7, the investigating officer Sharsher Singh. Having gone
through the entire deposition of the aforesaid witnesses minutely, we are
of the opinion that, by and large, they have supported the case of the
prosecution. In fact, both the learned Sessions Court and the High Court
have considered in detail the so-called contradictions pointed out by the
defence. Both the Courts below have rightly observed that there might          G
be minor contradictions, but they are not fatal to the prosecution case
and/or they will not make the prosecution case false.
      10. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions, minor
discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to
                                                                               H
462            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 3 S.C.R.


A     be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is
      whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. In the
      case of Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2007) 11 SCC 195 it is
      observed by this Court that every omission cannot take place of a material
      omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or
      insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of prosecution case
B
      and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence.
      It is further observed that the omission should create a serious doubt
      about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is further
      observed that it is only the serious contradictions and omissions which
      materially affect the case of prosecution but not every contradiction or
C     omission.
            11. Applying the aforesaid to the facts and circumstances of the
      case, we are of the opinion that the witnesses who were examined by
      the prosecution are trustworthy and reliable. There are no material
      contradictions which may affect the case of the prosecution. PW-5 is
D     the eye-witness and also the victim. She has been fully cross-examined
      by the defence. But the defence has not brought out anything from her
      cross-examination which may affect the case of the prosecution and/or
      which may doubt her trustworthiness. PW-14 is an independent witness
      to whom the occurrence was narrated by PW-5. Even PW-8 and
      PW-9 are also independent witnesses. Nothing has been alleged against
E     them.
             12. In the present case, there are also recoveries of cash and
      ornaments from the house of the accused which were recovered at the
      instance of the accused. The cash of Rs.36,70,000/- which was taken
      by the accused from the house of the victims has been recovered from
F     the house of the accused. Even the ornaments which were taken by the
      accused from the house of the victims have been recovered from the
      house of the accused and that too at the instance of the accused himself.
      The recoveries regarding memos etc. have been proved by the
      prosecution. Even the keys of the house of the victims were found from
G     the house of the accused. The ornaments and the cash have been
      identified by PW-5. Merely because, earlier there might have been
      search at the house of the accused and nothing was found at that time,
      cannot be a ground to discard the recoveries made subsequently which,
      as such, were made at the instance of the accused himself. The accused
      is the best person to know where he kept the ornaments/cash which he
H
          KHUSHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                    463
                    [M. R. SHAH, J.]

had taken from the house of the victims. There is no reason to doubt the          A
recoveries.
      12.1 In the present case, the prosecution has been successful in
proving the motive for the accused to commit the offence and to do
away with the entire family, which is supported by the recoveries of
cash and ornaments from the house of the accused.                                 B
       12.2 Even the recoveries of Anzilum 0.5mg tablets from the Maruti
car belonging to the accused has been established and proved. Therefore,
the prosecution case that he had given pills to the deceased persons and,
thereafter, killed them has been established. Now the case on behalf of
the accused that no poison was detected in the contents sent to the               C
chemical examiner and, therefore, the aforesaid case of the prosecution
may not be believable is concerned, it is required to be noted that only in
a case where the pills are given in larger number, in that case only, the
poison would be detected. Therefore, non-detection of the poison in the
contents would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
                                                                                  D
        13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case
and the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed
by the High Court, which the Courts below have considered in detail by
giving cogent reasons and on appreciation of the evidence on record, we
are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly confirmed the conviction
of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC having            E
killed/committing the murder of six persons. We are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Under the
circumstances of the case, the conviction of the accused for the aforesaid
offences is hereby confirmed.
       14. Now, so far as the capital punishment imposed by the learned           F
Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court is concerned, at the
outset, it is required to be noted that, as such, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the accused is not in a position to point out any mitigating
circumstance which warrants commutation of death sentence to the life
imprisonment. In the present case, the accused has killed six innocent            G
persons, out of which two were minors – below 10 years of age. Almost,
all the family members of PW-5 were done to death in a diabolical and
dastardly manner. Fortunately, or unfortunately, only one person of the
family of PW-5 could survive. In the present case, the accused has
killed six innocent persons in a pre-planned manner. The convict
                                                                                  H
464             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 3 S.C.R.


A     meticulously planned the time. He first kidnapped three persons by way
      of deception and took them to the canal and after drugging them with
      sleeping tablets, pushed them in the canal at a mid-night to ensure that
      the crime is not detected. That, thereafter he killed another three persons
      in the second stage/instalment. Therefore, considering the law laid down
      by this Court in the case of Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6
B
      SCC 1, the case would fall in the category of the “rarest of rare case”
      warranting death sentence/capital punishment. The aggravating
      circumstances are in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
      Therefore, striking a balance between the aggravating and mitigating
      circumstances, we are of the opinion that the aggravating circumstance
C     would tilt the balance in favour of the capital punishment. In the facts
      and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no
      alternative punishment suitable, except the death sentence. The crime
      is committed with extremist brutality and the collective conscious of the
      society would be shocked. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the
      capital punishment/death sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court
D
      and confirmed by the High Court does not warrant any interference by
      this Court. Therefore, we confirm the death sentence of the accused
      imposed by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court
      while convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
      302 IPC.
E           15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeals fail. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
      High Court dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order
      passed by the learned Sessions Court convicting the accused for the
      offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 307, 201 and 380 IPC is
F     hereby confirmed. The conviction of the appellant-accused for the
      offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and other offences is hereby
      confirmed and the capital imprisonment/death sentence imposed by the
      learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court for the offence
      punishable under Section 302 IPC for having killed six persons is hereby
      confirmed.
G

      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                        Appeals dismissed.




H