KHUSHWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB on 5 March 2019

446

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

[2019] 3 S.C.R.

KHUSHWINDER SINGH

A

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 ofC6 persons – By kidnapping them and drugging them with sleepingtablets and then drowning them in a canal – Conviction by courtsbelow – Death sentence imposed – On appeal, held: The prosecutionhas proved the case against the accused by cogent evidence – Thecase is proved by eye-witness, independent witness and the witnessbefore whom the accused made extra-judicial confession – TheDwitnesses are trustworthy and reliable – There are no materialcontradiction which may affect the prosecution case – The accusedwas last seen together with three of the deceased – Recovery ofdrug at the instance of the accused is proved – Recovery of cashand ornaments and key of the house of the deceased from the houseEof the accused at his instance prove the motive for the murder – Thefindings 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 themurder of 6 innocent persons with extreme brutality in a plannedmanner – On striking a balance between the aggravating andFmitigating circumstances, aggravating circumstances tilt in favourof capital punishment – Therefore, capital punishment/deathsentence 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 againstthe 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

occurrence which was first in time; PW-8 the ex-Sarpanch; PW-9before whom extra-judicial confession was made and also byexamining several police witnesses, including PW-7, theinvestigating officer. By and large, these witnesses havesupported the case of the prosecution. [Para 9.4] [461-E-F]

1.2 The accused was last seen together with deceasedhusband, mother and brother of PW5 on 25/26.06.2012 at about2.30 a.m. Thereafter, the aforesaid three persons were not seenalive by anyone. The deposition of PW-5 having seen the accusedlast together with the aforesaid three persons, has beenestablished and proved by the prosecution by leading cogentevidence and examining PW-8, the ex-Sarpanch. [Para 9.3][461-D]

1.3 Minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasisand the evidence is to be considered from the point of view oftrustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspiresconfidence in the mind of the court. Every omission cannot takeplace of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions,inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect thecore of prosecution case and should not be taken to be a groundto reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should createa serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of awitness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions whichmaterially affect the case of prosecution but not everycontradiction or omission. In the present case, the witnesseswho were examined by the prosecution are trustworthy andreliable. There are no material contradictions which may affectthe case of the prosecution. PW-5 is the eye-witness and also thevictim. She has been fully cross-examined by the defence. Butthe defence has not brought out anything from her cross-examination which may affect the case of the prosecution and/orwhich may doubt her trustworthiness. PW-14 is an independentwitness to whom the occurrence was narrated by PW-5. EvenPW-8 and PW-9 are also independent witnesses. Nothing hasbeen 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.

ABC

D

EFG

H

A1.4 There are also recoveries of cash and ornaments fromthe house of the accused which were recovered at the instanceof the accused. The recoveries regarding memos etc. have beenproved by the prosecution. Even the keys of the house of thevictims were found from the house of the accused. The ornamentsand the cash have been identified by PW-5. Merely because,Bearlier there might have been search at the house of the accusedand nothing was found at that time, cannot be a ground to discardthe recoveries made subsequently which, as such, were made atthe instance of the accused himself. The accused is the bestperson to know where he kept the ornaments/cash which he hadCtaken from the house of the victims. There is no reason to doubtthe recoveries. [Para 12] [462-F-H; 463-A]

A

1.5 The prosecution has been successful in proving themotive for the accused to commit the offence and to do away withthe entire family, which is supported by the recoveries of cashDand ornaments from the house of the accused. [Para 12.1][463-B]

1.6 Even the recoveries of Anzilum 0.5mg tablets from theMaruti car belonging to the accused has been established andproved. Therefore, the prosecution case that he had given pillsEto the deceased persons and, thereafter, killed them has beenestablished. Non-detection of the poison in the contents wouldnot be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Where the pills aregiven in larger number, in that case only, the poison would bedetected. [Para 12.2] [463-B-C]

F1.7 The findings recorded by the trial court and confirmedby the High Court are on appreciation of the evidence, which areneither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. TheHigh Court has rightly confirmed the conviction of the accusedfor 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 courtsbelow is concerned, the counsel of the accused is not in a positionto point out any mitigating circumstance which warrantscommutation of death sentence to the life imprisonment. The accused has killed six innocent persons, out of which two wereminors – below 10 years of age. Almost, all the family membersof PW-5 were done to death in a diabolical and dastardly manner.Only one person of the family of PW-5 could survive. The accusedhas killed six innocent persons in a pre-planned manner. Theconvict meticulously planned the time. He first kidnapped threepersons by way of deception and took them to the canal and afterdrugging them with sleeping tablets, pushed them in the canal ata 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 ofrare case” warranting death sentence/capital punishment. Theaggravating circumstances are in favour of the prosecution andagainst the accused. Therefore, striking a balance between theaggravating and mitigating circumstances, the aggravatingcircumstance would tilt the balance in favour of the capitalpunishment. [Para 14] [464-A-C]

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 thedeath sentence. The crime is committed with extremist brutalityand the collective conscious of the society would be shocked.Therefore, the capital punishment/death sentence imposed bythe trial Court and confirmed by the High Court does not warrantany interference by this Court. Therefore, the death sentence ofthe accused is confirmed. [Para 14] [464-C-D]

3. The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment andorder passed by the trial court convicting the accused for theoffences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 307, 201 and 380IPC is hereby confirmed. The conviction of the appellant-accusedfor the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and otheroffences is hereby confirmed and the capital imprisonment/deathsentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by theHigh Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC forhaving killed six persons is hereby confirmed. [Para 15][464-E-G]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Case Law Reference

A

[2007] 5 SCR 1049

relied onPara 10 relied onPara 14

[2017] 6 SCR 1

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealBNos. 1433-1434 of 2014.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2013 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Murder Reference No. 3 of2013, Criminal Appeal No. CRA No. D-385-DB of 2013.

Tripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowria, Rajesh Singh, ShureshCKumar Sharma, Parveen Kumar, Prafulla Kumar, Nitish Shekhar, VishnuSharma, Advs. for the Appellant.

Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Mandakini Singh, Ms. Ashima Mandal,Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byD

M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by theimpugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2013 passed by the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Murder Reference No. 3 of2013 with Criminal Appeal No. D-385-DB of 2013, by which the HighCourt has affirmed the death penalty imposed by the learned SessionsECourt, by affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned SessionsCourt, Fatehgarh Sahib dated 15.03.2013, consequently convicting theappellant-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 –FJasmeen Kaur – original Complainant was that she was married withRupinder Singh S/o Jeet Singh of village Bhojewal in the year 2005.Two children, the elder son namely Jaskirat Singh, aged about sevenyears and a daughter namely Prabhsimran Kaur aged about six yearswere born from the said marriage. Since the atmosphere in the family ofGthe in-laws of the complainant was not good, complainant Jasmeen Kauralong with her husband and children had been living at her natal place atvillage Mukandpur for the last about six years prior to the occurrence.Gurinder Singh @ Babbu, brother of Jasmeen Kaur used to consumeliquor in excess. He was dissuaded by the family from doing so and wasalso made to understand in this regard. Thereafter, Manjit Kaur, wifeH

of the accused Khushwinder Singh, R/o village Suhavi, Police StationKhamanon, who is the daughter of maternal uncle of the complainant,came to see her along with the accused. The latter informed the familyof the complainant that he knew one ‘Baba’ (holy man) who lives intheir area, who can make person get rid of their habit of drinkingpermanently. The accused further informed that he also knew one travelagent, who could send Rupinder Singh, husband of the complainant,abroad. Thereafter, the accused along starting visiting the house of thecomplainant. About three months prior to the incident, the accused cameto the house of the complainant and informed that he had madearrangements with an agent for sending Rupinder Singh to Canada. Hedemanded Rs.2,00,000/- and the passport of Rupinder Singh. He alsoinformed that the remaining amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was to be paid ongetting visa. Thereupon, the family of the complainant pledged their goldornaments with the goldsmith and borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- which, alongwith the passport of Rupinder Singh, were handed over to the accused.The accused further informed the complainant’s family that the job wouldbe done within two months. The accused further informed that he hadalso got in touch with ‘Baba’ (holy man) to enable Gurinder Singh togive up his habit of drinking and, for that purpose, the complainant’sfamily would have to offer “Dhala” (offering certain pulses, rice etc. inrunning water).

2.1 On this, in the evening of 25.06.2012 at about 06.00 p.m., theaccused came to village Mukandpur to the house of the complainant inhis car and informed the family of the complainant that “Dhala” was tobe offered on the night at about 02.30 a.m. and, for this purpose, theaccused made Paramjit Kaur – mother, Gurinder Singh @ Babbu –brother and Rupinder Singh – husband of complainant respectively toaccompany him. Gurinder Singh, father of the complainant, alsoaccompanied them as he was to pay obeisance at Gurudwara RaraSahib. Then, on 26.06.2012 at about 11.30 a.m. the accused came backin his car to village Mukandpur and informed the complainant that GurinderSingh, 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 JasmeenKaur, along with her father Gurmail Singh, son Jaskirat Singh and daughterPrabhsimran Kaur accompanied the accused in his Maruti car bearing AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ano. PB-10AM-9371. On the way, the accused informed that he hadreceived a phone call from “Baba ji” that Gurinder Singh wouldpermanently get rid of his drinking habit, but in turn Gurmail Singh, fatherof the complainant, would have to take a drink. On this, Gurmail Singhgot into a fix, as he in fact never used to drink liquor, but he undercompulsion agreed to consume liquor. Thereafter, on the way, theBaccused purchased a half liquor bottle and gave to Gurmail Singh, fatherof the complainant, for drinking. He gradually consumed the half liquorbottle. Thereafter, the accused took some rounds and got thecomplainant, her children and Gurmail Singh towards the canal ahead ofBassi Pathana, where he turned his car to towards the bridge of theCcanal on its bank an informed the complainant that they were to firstoffer “Dhala”. On this, at about 09.30 p.m., complainant Jasmeen Kaurand her father Gurmail Singh got down from the car and the childrenkept sitting in the car. They came to the bank of the canal and whenthey were to offer “Dhala” in the running water, the accused pushedboth of them in the canal and, on this, both of them fell in the canal.DJasmeen Kaur, however, fell on one side of the canal near the edge andshe, therefore, started to save herself. At some considerable distance,she was able to catch an iron bar, which had been fixed in the canal andfrom there, she came out of the canal and by coming along the canal shedisclosed the entire occurrence to the official of the canal departmentEwho were present there. They further informed it to the parental familyof the complainant at village Mukandpur. They, along with thecomplainant, also searched for her father and children, but she could notget to know anything about them. The place of occurrence was nearthe bridge of Bhakra canal of village Thablan.

F2.3 The complainant had a firm belief that the accused by cheatingtheir entire family on a false pretext had thrown her husband RupinderSingh, her brother Gurinder Singh, mother Paramjit Kaur, son JaskiratSingh and daughter Prabhsimran Kaur had been illegally detainedsomewhere or they had been thrown in the canal. The complainant furtheralleged that, along with her, her father Gurmail Singh was also thrown inGthe canal by the accused and the accused had killed him so that his deadbody may be untraceable. The complainant further informed in herstatement that they had sold their land for Rs.37,00,000/- and that moneywas 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

the amount of Rs.37,00,000/-. The accused carried out this exercise bykeeping the entire family in deceit. The complainant requested that actionbe taken against the accused and they be imparted justice. Thecomplainant had given her statement in the present of her brother JangBahadur Singh. She had heard her statement and it was correct. Shesigned her statement in Punjabi, which was affirmed by Jang BahadurSingh and was attested by SI Shamsher Singh, SHO, Police Station BasiPathana.

2.4 The said statement – Ex. P5 ibid of Jasmeen Kaur complainantwas recorded by Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) who read over and explainedthe contents thereof to her and the complainant after admitting thegenuineness and correctness thereof, signed the same. Later, ShamsherSingh, SI put his endorsement Ex.P9 thereon, to the effect that 27.06.2012he had received a telephonic message in the police station that somepersons had been thrown in the canal. Thereupon, he accompanied byother police officials visited the Bhakra main line near the bridge atvillage Thablan, where several persons had gathered along the canalbank. The complainant got her statement recorded. Endorsement Ex.P9was completed on 27.06.2012 at 11.30 a.m. The statement was sent topolice station Bassi Pathana through Constable Sikander Singh. On thebasis of the said statement Ex.P5, formal FIR Ex.P10 for the offencesunder Sections 302, 307 and 201 of the IPC was registered against theaccused.

3. That, thereafter the Investigating Officer commenced theinvestigation and recorded the statements of the concerned witnessesand also collected the incriminating material. The Investigating Officerset out for search of the accused and recorded the statement of oneManjit Singh, resident of Village Nogawan, who was the Ex-Sarpanchand informed the Investigating Officer that the accused came to him onthe morning of 27.06.2012 and told him that he had thrown his relationsGurinder 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. Onbeing interrogated, he made some disclosers to the police, including thathe had stolen Rs.36,70,000/- from the house of Gurmail Singh and hehad concealed the money in his house in a bag which was lying in thealmirah of his house. His disclosure statement was recorded, signed bythe accused and witnessed by ASI Kaur Singh. It was attested by A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AShamsher Singh S.I. The accused then accompanied the police to hishouse and led them to the almirah from where Rs.36,70,000/- containedin a bag were recovered. Recovery memo was prepared. Thereafter,the investigating team visited the place of incident where the victimswere thrown in the canal. A supplementary statement of the complainantwas recorded wherein she disclosed the theft of her ornaments andBmoney. That, one by one, the dead bodies of the victims were found.The Investigating Officer collected the medical evidence. The autopsyon the dead bodies of the victims was done by the concerned doctors.During the course of the investigation and on the basis of the statementmade by the accused during interrogation, the Chappals and shoes ofCthe victims were found/recovered. That, during interrogation, theappellant made a statement that on 26.06.2012 in the morning, headministered sleeping pills Anzilum 05 along with “mishri” (Sugar) toRupinder Singh, Gurinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur before offering“Dhala” and empty strips lying in the envelope were kept concealedunderneath the driver seat of a Maruti car and he could get thoseDrecovered. His disclosure statement was recorded, that was signed byhim and witnessed by ASI Harjit Singh and HC Balbir Singh. That,thereafter the Investigating officer recovered those strips from the carparked in the police station. The Investigating Officer prepared parcelof this article and sealed the same.E

4. That, on 01.08.2012, the complainant Jasmeen Kaur came atthe police station and asked for recording her statement under Section164 CrPC She was taken to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,Fatehgarh Sahib, where the Investigating Officer moved an applicationfor recording the statement of the complainant Jasmeen Kaur underFSection 164 CrPC. Her statement was recorded by the learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib.

4.1 After completion of the investigation, the Station House Officerof the Police Station, Bassi Pathana filed the police report under Section173 CrPC before the learned Magistrate to the effect that the AppellantGaccused has committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201and 307 of the IPC.

4.2 On presentation of the police report, the copies of thedocuments, as required under Section 207 CrPC, were furnished to theaccused. The case was committed by the learned Magistrate to thelearned Sessions Court vide order dated 29.09.2012 as the offencesH

were exclusively triable by the Court of Session. That the learnedSessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib framed the charge against the accusedfor the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 264, 302,201 and 380 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimedtrial and therefore he came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court forthe aforesaid offences.

A

B

4.3 To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution ledoral as well as the documentary evidence. The prime witnesses examinedby the prosecution are as under:

Through the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution also brought onrecord the incriminating material against the accused.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of theappellant-accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC and thesubstance of the evidence appearing against him was put to him. Hedenied the allegations of the prosecution. He pleaded innocence and thefalse implication in the case. He also further stated that Gurinder Singh@ Babbu, brother of the complainant Jasmeen Kaur was addicted toalcohol and therefore Jasmeen Kaur was staying with her parents. Thather entire family was under tension. That her brother Gurinder Singhunder the influence of liquor threw the entire family in the canal andlater on Gurinder Singh commit suicide. It was stated that JasmeenKaur 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 entireevidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, learned SessionsCourt convicted the appellant-accused for offences punishable under E

F

G

H

ASections 302, 307, 364, 201 and 380 of the IPC. That the learned SessionsCourt imposed the death sentence for the offence punishable underSection 302 IPC. Learned Sessions Court also imposed other punishmentsfor the other offences for which he was convicted. Learned SessionsCourt also passed an order that all the sentences to run consequently.The accused made a reference to the High Court which was numberedBas Murder Reference No. 3 of 2013. The accused also preferred anappeal before the High Court challenging the judgment and order passedby the learned Sessions Court convicting him for the aforesaid offences.

6.1 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has, onre-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and by a well-reasonedCjudgment, has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by thelearned Sessions Court, including the death sentence. Hence, the presentappeals before this Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused has vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstancesDof the case, both the learned Sessions Court as well as the High Courthave materially erred in holding the appellant-accused guilty for theaforesaid offences.

7.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant-accused that the High Court has not properlyEappreciated and/or considered and/or re-appreciated the entire evidenceon record while confirming the findings recorded by the learned SessionsCourt holding the appellant-accused guilty for having committed themurder of six persons.

7.2 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearingFon behalf of the appellant-accused that the High Court has not properlyappreciated and/or considered the fact that it is a case of materialcontradictions, more particularly, the depositions of PW-5 and the otherwitnesses examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that there arematerial contradictions in the depositions of PW-5 and other prosecutionGwitnesses with respect to the registration of the FIR and the arrival ofthe police at the spot and, more particularly, the time at which the policereached the spot. For the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused has taken us through the depositions ofPW-5, PW-14, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-11.

H

7.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused that there are material contradictions inthe oral evidence between PW-5, PW-7, PW-8, PW-11, PW-14 andPW-17 which shall weaken the prosecution case and therefore the samebenefit must go to the accused as it can be said that the prosecution hasfailed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

7.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused that it is a case of planting of falsewitnesses; planting of recoveries (cash and keys disclosure statementunder Section 37 of the Evidence Act of the accused and the memo ofrecovery of cash and keys) as there are material contradictions betweenPW-5, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-11.

7.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused that the recovery of cash and keys hasbeen planted by the prosecution. It is submitted that, in the cross-examination of PW-7, SI Sharsher Singh has categorically stated thatbefore 02.07.2012 the accused had not disclosed as to where he hadkept concealed the money. It is submitted that in the cross-examinationPW-7 has stated that during remand the house of the accused wassearched for three times. It is submitted that, despite the above, nothingwas found from the house of the accused when it was searched earlier.

7.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused that it is also a case of planting ofrecoveries (ornaments disclosure statement under Section 27 of theEvidence Act of Harjit Singh, ASI and Head Constable Balwinder Singh)as there are material contradictions between PW-5, PW-7, PW-9 andPW-11. It is submitted that though PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9 stated withrespect to the recovery of ornaments from the Petti lying at the house ofthe accused, in the entire Chief and in cross-examination, PW-11 nowheretells about the recovery of ornaments from anywhere at any point oftime.

7.7 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused that even it is a case of planting ofrecovery of Anzilum 0.5mg tablets, memo of disclosure of statementunder Section 27 of the Evidence Act of ASI Harjit Singh and HeadConstable Balbir Singh and the recovery memo of six empty strips oftablets Anzilum 0.5 mg tablets. It is submitted that there are materialcontradictions on the aforesaid recoveries.

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A7.8 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused that the strips of the tablets wererecovered from the Maruti car which was kept parked in the policestation. It is submitted that, therefore, there are all possibilities of plantingof recovery of Anzilum 0.5 mg tables. It is submitted that the stripswere planted later on to show the accused might have intoxicated theBvictims.

A

7.9 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused that, in the report of the chemical analyserEx.P-44, no poison has been detected in the contents of Ex.I to V. It isCsubmitted that no poison was detected in the contents sent to the chemicalanalyser. It is submitted that, in any case, the contents of the Anzilumtablets cannot be said to be poisonous.

7.10 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused that motive attributed by PW-5 and theDprosecution for the accused to commit the offences and to kill the familymembers of PW-5 is not at all believable. It is prayed therefore toacquit the accused for the offences for which he has been convicted.

7.11 In the alternative, it is submitted by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the appellant-accused that this is not a case ofEcapital punishment and, therefore, without prejudice to his submissionsmade hereinabove, it is prayed to commute the death sentence to lifeimprisonment.

8. The present appeals are vehemently opposed by the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the State.

F

8.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearingon behalf of the State. It is submitted that, in the present case, theprosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused beyondreasonable doubt. It is submitted that on appreciation and re-appreciationof the entire evidence on record, both the learned Sessions Court asGwell as the High Court have rightly held the accused guilty for havingkilled the six persons. It is submitted that therefore the findings recordedby the learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court are onappreciation of the evidence, which are neither perverse nor contrary tothe materials on record.

H

8.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the State that the present case of the prosecution is based onthe eye-witness of the complainant PW-5 Jasmeen Kaur, which is also asubstantial evidence and the evidence of last seen.

8.3 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearingon behalf of the State that, in the present case, PW-5 is the unfortunateeye-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 lastseen with the deceased. It is submitted that PW-5 is the witness to thedeceased Gurinder Singh – brother, mother Paramjit Kaur and husbandRupinder Singh leaving in the company of the accused on 25/26.06.2012at about 2.30 am and thereafter these three persons were not seen aliveby anyone. Rather dead body of Gurinder Singh was found by the policeon 29.6.2012. It is submitted that, therefore, the prosecution has beensuccessful in proving the accused last seen together with the deceasedGurinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Singh.

8.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the State that on 26.06.2012, the complainant PW-5 along withher father Gurmail Singh and her two children aged seven and eightyears respectively left in the car of the accused for offering prayer inthe running water of Bhakra main canal near village Thablan bridge.It is submitted that, as stated by PW-5 in her deposition, at about9.30 p.m., when PW-5 along with her father came out of the car to offerprayer in the running water while her children kept sitting in the car, theaccused pushed PW-5 and her father in the canal. However, PW-5came out of the canal with the help of an iron bar in the canal. PW-5immediately narrated the occurrence to some employees of canaldepartment present there – PW-4 Rajinder Singh.

8.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the State that the fact that PW-5, Gurmail Singh and her twochildren aged seven and eight years respectively were with the accusedin the Maruti car, has been corroborated by PW-8 Jang Bahadur.

8.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the State that, as such, there are no material contradictions onthe registration of the FIR and arrival of the police on the spot, ascontended/submitted on behalf of the accused. It is submitted thatPW-5 and PW-7 have fully supported each other on the police arrivingat the spot and the registration of the FIR.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A8.7 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the State that, in the present case, as such, there are recoveriesof money and ornaments which have been recovered from the house ofthe accused. It is submitted that recoveries were done at the instanceof the accused himself. It is also submitted that the recovery of theornaments and cash has been established and proved by the prosecutionBbeyond doubt.

A

8.8 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the State that even the recovery of Anzilum 0.5mg tabletsfrom the Maruti car of the accused has been established and proved bythe prosecution by leading cogent evidence.C

8.9 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the State that, in the present case, even the motive has beenproved beyond all doubts that the crime is committed for theft ofRs.37,00,000/- and ornaments and that the accused planned meticulouslyto wipe out the entire family. It is submitted that as the accused wasDaware that he will not be able to kill all the seven members of the familyat one time and, therefore, he took them in two stages and killed them intwo instalments. It is submitted that, therefore, both the Courts belowhave rightly held the accused guilty for having killed six persons out ofseven members of a single family and has rightly imposed the capitalEpunishment.

8.10 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the State that, in the facts and circumstances of the case andthe manner in which the accused killed six innocent persons, out of sevenmembers of a family, and that too, in a pre-planned manner and in twoFinstalments, the aggravating circumstances are in favour of the capitalpunishment. Therefore, it is prayed to confirm the capital punishment/death sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court and confirmedby the impugned judgment of the High Court.

9. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respectiveGparties at length. We have scanned the entire evidence on record, bothoral as well as documentary evidence. We have minutely consideredand gone through the entire evidence on record, as it is a case of capitalpunishment and death penalty awarded by the Courts below.

9.1 Having heard the counsel for the respective parties and havingscanned/gone through the entire evidence on record, and the findingsH

recorded by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court,we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned SessionsCourt and confirmed by the High Court are on appreciation of theevidence, which are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence onrecord.

9.2 It is required to be noted that, in the present case, six personsout of seven members of a family have been killed by the accused. It isrequired to be noted that even PW-5 was also thrown into the canal bythe accused along with her father Gurmail Singh and her two childrenaged seven and eight years. However, she could survive and come outof the canal with the help of an iron bar in the canal. Therefore, she isthe eye-witness to the incident of having pushed along with GurmailSingh into the canal.

9.3 The accused was last seen together with the deceased GurinderSingh, Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Singh on 25/26.06.2012 at about2.30 a.m. That, thereafter, the aforesaid three persons were not seenalive by anyone. That the dead body of Gurinder Singh was found bythe police on 29.06.2012. The deposition of PW-5 having seen the accusedlast together with the aforesaid three persons, has been established andproved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence and examiningPW-8 Jang Bahadur, ex-Sarpanch of village Mukandpur.

9.4 The prosecution has proved the case against the accused byleading cogent evidence and examining PW-5, the eye-witness; PW-14,an employee of the canal department, who is an independent witness towhom PW-5 narrated the entire occurrence which was first in time;PW-8 the ex-Sarpanch; PW-9 Manjit Singh before whom extra-judicialconfession was made and also by examining several police witnesses,including PW-7, the investigating officer Sharsher Singh. Having gonethrough the entire deposition of the aforesaid witnesses minutely, we areof the opinion that, by and large, they have supported the case of theprosecution. In fact, both the learned Sessions Court and the High Courthave considered in detail the so-called contradictions pointed out by thedefence. Both the Courts below have rightly observed that there mightbe minor contradictions, but they are not fatal to the prosecution caseand/or they will not make the prosecution case false.

10. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions, minordiscrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to A

B

C

D

E

FG

H

Abe considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test iswhether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. In thecase of Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2007) 11 SCC 195 it isobserved by this Court that every omission cannot take place of a materialomission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies orinsignificant embellishments do not affect the core of prosecution caseBand should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence.It is further observed that the omission should create a serious doubtabout the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is furtherobserved that it is only the serious contradictions and omissions whichmaterially affect the case of prosecution but not every contradiction orComission.

11. Applying the aforesaid to the facts and circumstances of thecase, we are of the opinion that the witnesses who were examined bythe prosecution are trustworthy and reliable. There are no materialcontradictions which may affect the case of the prosecution. PW-5 isDthe eye-witness and also the victim. She has been fully cross-examinedby the defence. But the defence has not brought out anything from hercross-examination which may affect the case of the prosecution and/orwhich may doubt her trustworthiness. PW-14 is an independent witnessto whom the occurrence was narrated by PW-5. Even PW-8 andPW-9 are also independent witnesses. Nothing has been alleged againstEthem.

12. In the present case, there are also recoveries of cash andornaments from the house of the accused which were recovered at theinstance of the accused. The cash of Rs.36,70,000/- which was takenby the accused from the house of the victims has been recovered fromFthe house of the accused. Even the ornaments which were taken by theaccused from the house of the victims have been recovered from thehouse of the accused and that too at the instance of the accused himself.The recoveries regarding memos etc. have been proved by theprosecution. Even the keys of the house of the victims were found fromGthe house of the accused. The ornaments and the cash have beenidentified by PW-5. Merely because, earlier there might have beensearch 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 accusedis the best person to know where he kept the ornaments/cash which he H

had taken from the house of the victims. There is no reason to doubt therecoveries.

12.1 In the present case, the prosecution has been successful inproving the motive for the accused to commit the offence and to doaway with the entire family, which is supported by the recoveries ofcash and ornaments from the house of the accused.

12.2 Even the recoveries of Anzilum 0.5mg tablets from the Maruticar 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 ofthe accused that no poison was detected in the contents sent to thechemical examiner and, therefore, the aforesaid case of the prosecutionmay not be believable is concerned, it is required to be noted that only ina case where the pills are given in larger number, in that case only, thepoison would be detected. Therefore, non-detection of the poison in thecontents would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.

13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the caseand the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court and confirmedby the High Court, which the Courts below have considered in detail bygiving cogent reasons and on appreciation of the evidence on record, weare of the opinion that the High Court has rightly confirmed the convictionof the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC havingkilled/committing the murder of six persons. We are in completeagreement with the view taken by the High Court. Under thecircumstances of the case, the conviction of the accused for the aforesaidoffences is hereby confirmed.

14. Now, so far as the capital punishment imposed by the learnedSessions Court and confirmed by the High Court is concerned, at theoutset, it is required to be noted that, as such, the learned counsel appearingon behalf of the accused is not in a position to point out any mitigatingcircumstance which warrants commutation of death sentence to the lifeimprisonment. In the present case, the accused has killed six innocentpersons, 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 anddastardly manner. Fortunately, or unfortunately, only one person of thefamily of PW-5 could survive. In the present case, the accused haskilled six innocent persons in a pre-planned manner. The convict A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ameticulously planned the time. He first kidnapped three persons by wayof deception and took them to the canal and after drugging them withsleeping tablets, pushed them in the canal at a mid-night to ensure thatthe crime is not detected. That, thereafter he killed another three personsin the second stage/instalment. Therefore, considering the law laid downby this Court in the case of Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6BSCC 1, the case would fall in the category of the “rarest of rare case”warranting death sentence/capital punishment. The aggravatingcircumstances are in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.Therefore, striking a balance between the aggravating and mitigatingcircumstances, we are of the opinion that the aggravating circumstanceCwould tilt the balance in favour of the capital punishment. In the factsand circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is noalternative punishment suitable, except the death sentence. The crimeis committed with extremist brutality and the collective conscious of thesociety would be shocked. Therefore, we are of the opinion that thecapital punishment/death sentence imposed by the learned Sessions CourtDand confirmed by the High Court does not warrant any interference bythis Court. Therefore, we confirm the death sentence of the accusedimposed by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Courtwhile convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section302 IPC.

E

15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals fail. The impugned judgment and order passed by theHigh Court dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Sessions Court convicting the accused for theoffences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 307, 201 and 380 IPC isFhereby confirmed. The conviction of the appellant-accused for theoffences punishable under Section 302 IPC and other offences is herebyconfirmed and the capital imprisonment/death sentence imposed by thelearned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court for the offencepunishable under Section 302 IPC for having killed six persons is herebyconfirmed.G

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals dismissed.

H