Supreme Court Quashes Death Sentence, Acquits Man Over Village Massacre Citing Contradictory Eyewitnesses and Investigative Lapses

A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals by the accused against the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s confirmation of conviction and death sentence in a 2013 incident in which four family members, including two children, died and two others were injured. The appeals challenged the Additional Sessions Judge’s conviction under Sections 302, 308 and 325 IPC and the High Court’s order confirming the death penalty.

The Court allowed the appeals, quashed the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court and acquitted the appellant for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The bench recorded that the prosecution case rested primarily on the testimonies of two close relatives and a child-witness, and found “major contradictions” in eyewitness accounts, unexplained delays and gaps in investigation and insufficient forensic linkage between recovered articles and the crime. The Court noted that the Trial Court had characterised the case as “one of the rarest of rare” but held that aggravating circumstances could not substitute for the strict standard of proof required in capital cases. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 a 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.” The bench ordered the appellant’s immediate release unless required in connection with any other case.

Background The prosecution alleged that in the early hours of 29 November 2013 the appellant attacked members of his wife’s family at the maternal home, killing Seema Rani, Reena Rani and two young children (Sumani Kumari and Harsh) and injuring Harry and Om Prakash. FIR No. 54/2013 was registered the same day. The investigating agency later relied on purported disclosure statements, recoveries of a gandasi, blood-stained clothes and a bicycle, and the testimonies of PW1 (complainant Vijay Kumar), PW2 (his mother Manjit Kaur, who claimed to be an eyewitness) and PW17 (child injured witness Harry). The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to death on 29 February 2020, treating the crime as falling in the “rarest of rare” category. The High Court, though discarding parts of PW1’s testimony, sustained conviction primarily on PW2’s evidence, motive and the accused’s unexplained injuries; it invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act to draw an adverse inference from the appellant’s silence about those injuries.

On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinised witness depositions and the investigative record. The Court recorded the prosecution’s own contemporaneous FIR and trial depositions and highlighted material inconsistencies: contradictory accounts on the accused’s weapon (datar vs gandasi), differing versions on whether the complainant was present at the scene, mismatched descriptions of proximity between houses, the absence of independent neighbourhood witnesses despite alleged “raula”, contradictory timelines as to when PW2 saw the assailant, and PW17’s admission that he was asleep and did not witness the assault. The Court also emphasised investigative deficiencies: a two-month delay in recovery, lack of independent attesting witnesses to recoveries, absence of conclusive forensic linkage of recovered articles to victims (chemical report stating only “human blood” and not formally exhibited), and the IO’s failure to preserve or deploy forensic protocols. The bench held that these lacunae and contradictions were material and fatally undermined the prosecution’s narrative, and that the High Court’s reliance on Section 106 was untenable without foundational facts establishing the appellant’s presence at the scene. Consequently, the appeals succeeded; convictions and sentences were quashed and the appellant was acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in other matters.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688-2689 of 2024; Citation 2025 INSC 856 Case Title: Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Counsel for the State