The Supreme Court on Wednesday separated the sentence of a person sentenced to death for the murder of four of its family members, including two of its minor children, including two of its minor children, stating that the prosecution had failed to establish allegations beyond appropriate doubts.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta said, “In the case, the major prosecution witnesses with investigative defects are the major contradictions in the witnesses” in the case “.
Writing for the bench, Justice Nath said, “The standard of evidence is absolutely strict and cannot be accompanied by. When there is human life at stake and cost blood, the case needs to be dealt with full honesty. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and not in the light of discussion, not in the light of discussion.
According to the prosecution, Balajinder Kumar alias Kala killed his wife, daughter, son and sister -in -law and injured two others on November 29, 2013 in Kapurthala, Punjab. He was angry with his mother -in -law, who arranged for his sister’s wedding, who did not work outside, and after divorce stood as a guarantor to pay his sister’s maintenance of Rs 35,000, but was not paid.
The prosecution claimed that Baljinder had fought with his wife on this, after which she left for her mother’s house with her children. He allegedly threatened to kill his wife and children if the money was not paid, the prosecution claimed.
In 2020, a trial court convicted Baljinder and sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in March 2024.
The SC in its order pointed to the contradictions in the testimony of the major prosecution witnesses (PWS). After examining the statement of PW1 and PW2, it was concluded that “the presence of PW2 at the crime site as an eyewitness is highly impossible as it is completely self-confident about the disclosure of that frightening morning events. Therefore, his existence as an eyewitness witness also has to be rejected”.
The story continues below this advertisement
It states that “these disgusting discrepancies suggest that PW2’s statement is highly unstable, varies at every other turn and it is not reliable at all”.
The verdict also said that the PW1/complainant, “During the FIR being registered, the accused had said that the accused was taking a ‘Datar’ while exiting the crime site. However, in the later statements made by the PW1 before the court, which was recorded after the alleged recovery of the weapon … PW1 replaced his stance easily and said that a ‘gandasi’ was asked to take.”
SC said, “It should be noted that two weapons are quite and clearly different, and a rural person, especially like PW 1, specializes in such a difference and will not make a mistake for the other.”
The court said, “The trial court as well as the High Court has very conveniently separated such contradictions in the praises of PW1 and PW2, assuming that minor contradictions do not go to the root of the prosecution case.
The story continues below this advertisement
It states, “In the immediate case, there are different versions of the same set of events that are being mentioned by these witnesses at different points of time, withdrawn statements and remolded according to their convenience, in which the statements are leading to the physical change in the series of differences in the statements. As mentioned above in the witnesses of the prosecution, the prosecution is mentioned above, as mentioned above, the prosecution story is men Carcasses completely.
The court added, “We cannot close an eye for clear discrepancies in our main witnesses, which deliberately indicate decorations and coaching, presenting these testimony incredibly. Therefore, we have no hesitation to believe that any credibility can motivate to see PW1 and PW2 testimony.
On the testimony of a witness of a child injured in the attack, the court said he was not really a witness to the incident. In his cross-examination … he said that he did not see the appellant because he was half-Sap. “He specifically stated that he did not see the appellant penetrating the deceased persons”. Therefore, even though his “testimony is considered completely reliable, it is clear that his statement cannot be considered as an illusion against the appellant for the lack of witness to the real event”.
(Tagstotransite) Supreme Court (T) Supreme Court’s death sentence (T) Death sentence was abolished (T) Balajinder Kumar’s death sentence overturned
