Key Deficiencies In Investigation: Supreme Court Acquits Man Who Was Awarded Death Penalty For Allegedly Killing His 4 Family Members

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man who was awarded death penalty for allegedly killing his four family members including two minor children in the year 2013.

Criminal Appeals were preferred by the accused, challenging the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld his conviction and confirmed his death sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “… 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.”

The Bench added that 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.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the Appellant/Accused while AOR Siddhant Sharma appeared for the Respondent/State.

Facts of the Case

As per the prosecution case, in 2013, the Complainant saw the Appellant-accused outside his mother’s house armed with a datar wherein he told him 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 the house, the Complainant found his relatives in injured condition which included the Appellant’s wife (Complainant’s sister), Appellant’s sister-in-law (Complainant’s sister), 5-year-old step-son of the Appellant, Around 4-year-old Appellant’s daughter, Around 2-year-old Appellant’s daughter, and 18-year-old Complainant’s brother. The Complainant called an ambulance, and all the six injured persons were taken to the hospital where the Appellant’s wife, sister-in-law, daughter, and son were declared brought dead. An FIR was registered under Sections 302, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Subsequently, the Appellant was arrested post his discharge from the hospital since he was also undergoing treatment of his arm since the date of incident.

The motive attributed by the prosecution to the Appellant was that the Appellant’s sister was married to a person, however, due to matrimonial dispute between the parties, the marriage was dissolved by divorce in presence of the Panchayat wherein her husband returned all the dowry articles and also undertook to pay maintenance. The Appellant’s mother-in-law stood as guarantor and when such amount was not paid, it led to constant fights between the Appellant and his wife. The fight had escalated to such an extent where the Appellant allegedly threatened to kill his wife and children if the money was not paid. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of IPC along with Sections 308 and 325 of the IPC. It also sentenced him to death along with a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. The High Court upheld his conviction and death penalty and hence, he approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “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.”

The Court said that 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 and 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”, it added.

The Court further remarked that when there remains practically 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.

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

Moreover, the Court noted that the High Court has employed Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) 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”, it also said.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that no opportunity arises to shift the burden of proof on the Appellant so as to reasonably explain his injury and no adverse inference can be drawn thereby.

“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”, it added.

The Court enunciated that 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 and it is settled law that in order to record conviction based on ocular evidence, their testimonies have to be completely credible and trustworthy.

“However, in the present matter, where there are major contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses accompanied by glaring investigative defects, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. At the cost of repetition, we must state that the standard of proof is an absolutely strict one and cannot be faltered with. When at stake are human lives and the cost is blood, the matter needs to be dealt with utmost sincerity. Therefore, given the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the above discussion, we cannot bring ourselves to hold the accused-appellant guilty of the charged offence as his guilt has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, quashed the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the Appellant.

Cause Title- Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 856)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, AOR Yash S. Vijay, Advocates Sakshi Jain, Deepak Sharma, Kms Sivani, and Shikhar Aggarwal.

Respondent: AOR Siddhant Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment