1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1433-1434 OF 2014

Khushwinder Singh .. Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

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 Court, by

affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court,

Fatehgarh  Sahib  dated  15.03.2013,  consequently  convicting  the

2

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  –

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 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  of  the  accused  Khushwinder  Singh,  R/o  village

Suhavi,  Police  Station  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 agent, who could send Rupinder Singh,

3

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 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 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

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

accompany  him.   Gurinder  Singh,  father  of  the  complainant,  also

4

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” 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 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 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 canal on its bank an informed the complainant that they were to

5

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.  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 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.

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

6

Singh was also thrown in 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 the amount

of Rs.37,00,000/-.   The accused carried out this exercise by 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 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 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.

7

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  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.

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

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 being interrogated, he made some disclosers to the police,

including that he had stolen Rs.36,70,000/- from the house of Gurmail

8

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 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 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  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  recovered.    His  disclosure  statement  was

recorded, that was signed by him and witnessed by ASI Harjit Singh

9

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.

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

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

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  learned

Sessions  Court  vide  order  dated  29.09.2012  as  the  offences  were

10

exclusively triable by the Court of Session.  That the learned 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.

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 JASMEEN KAUR

Complainant

PW-7 SHAMSHER SINGH

SI

PW-8 JANG BAHADUR

EX-SARPANCH  (of village Mukandpur)

PW-11 KAUR SINGH

ASI

PW-14 RAJINDER SINGH

REGULATION BELDAR, 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

appellant-accused  was  recorded  under  Section  313  CrPC  and  the

substance of the evidence appearing against him was put to him.   He

11

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 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.    

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 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 as Murder Reference No. 3 of

2013.  The accused also preferred an appeal before the High Court

12

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

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 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

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 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

13

other witnesses examined by the prosecution.   It  is submitted that

there are material contradictions in the depositions of PW-5 and other

prosecution 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.   

7.3 It  is  further  submitted  by  the  learned  counsel  appearing  on

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.

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.   

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

14

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  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

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 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

recovery of Anzilum 0.5mg tablets, memo of disclosure of statement

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of ASI Harjit Singh and Head

15

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.

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 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 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 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.

16

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

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.

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 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.  

8.2 It  is  further  submitted  by  the  learned  counsel  appearing  on

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.

17

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

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 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

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 prayer in the running water while her children kept sitting in

the  car,  the  accused  pushed  PW-5  and  her  father  in  the  canal.

18

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.

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

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.

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 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

19

from the Maruti car of the accused has been established and proved

by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence.

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  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 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 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.

20

9. Heard  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  respective

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

recorded by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High

Court, 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

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 Singh into the canal.

21

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

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

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,

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

22

there  might  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 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 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 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

the  eye-witness  and  also  the  victim.   She  has  been  fully

cross-examined by the defence.  But the defence has not brought out

23

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 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

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 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

24

kept the ornaments/cash which he had taken from the house of the

victims.  There is no reason to doubt the 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.

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  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.

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

25

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  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

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 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 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

26

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 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  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 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.

27

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

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.

…….………………………..J. (A.K. SIKRI)

……………………………..J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

……………………………..J. (M. R. SHAH)

New Delhi, March 5, 2019.