The Supreme Court today affirmed the death penalty given to a convict who was found guilty of murdering six persons out of seven members of a family..The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices AK Sikri, S Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah in an appeal filed by convict Khushwinder Singh against the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court..Sessions Court convicted the appellant-accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 364, 201 and 380 of the IPC. It imposed the death penalty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The Sessions Court also imposed other punishments for the other offences for which he was convicted. Sessions Court also passed an order that all the sentences to run consequently..The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. The High Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court, including the death sentence..This led to the appeal in Supreme Court..Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court did not properly appreciate and/or consider the fact that there were material contradictions in the evidence. It was argued that there were contradictions in the depositions of PW-5 and 13 other witnesses examined by the prosecution. Such contradictions were 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..It was further submitted that it was a case of planting of false witnesses; there was planting of recoveries such as cash and keys as was evidenced by material contradictions between the versions of different prosecution witnesses..The counsel for the State, however, contended that the prosecution had successfully proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt..It was submitted that on appreciation and re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, both the Sessions Court as well as the High Court rightly held the accused guilty for having killed the six persons..The findings recorded by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court are on appreciation of the evidence. The same is neither perverse nor contrary to the materials on record, the State argued..The State also submitted that the 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’..The Court after going through the material on record and considering the submissions of the parties held that the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court are on appreciation of the evidence..“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.”.In the present case, six persons out of seven members of a family were killed by the accused. Even PW-5 was 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, the Court said..The accused was last seen together with the deceased Gurinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Singh. Thereafter, the aforesaid three persons were not seen alive by anyone. The dead body of Gurinder Singh was found by the police on June 29, 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, the Court said..Regarding the contradictions pointed out by the accused, the Court observed that the same were pointed out to both the Sessions Court and the High Court by the accused. Both the courts below considered the same in detail and concluded that they were not fatal to the case..“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 there might be minor contradictions, but they are not fatal to the prosecution case and/or they will not make the prosecution case false.”.Minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence, the Court ruled placing reliance on earlier decisions..In the instant case, the Court concluded that there are no material contradictions which affected 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 anything from her cross-examination which may affect the case of the prosecution and/or which may doubt her trustworthiness..The Court, therefore, upheld the conviction of the accused..Regarding the imposition of death penalty, the Court noted that the accused 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. The killings were done in a pre-planned manner..The Court adverted to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2017) 6 SCC 1], and held that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstance in this case. Hence, it held that this case would fall within the category of “rarest of rare” case warranting the death penalty. It even stated that no alternative punishment would be suitable except the penalty..“…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.”.Hence, the appeal was dismissed..Read the judgment below.
The Supreme Court today affirmed the death penalty given to a convict who was found guilty of murdering six persons out of seven members of a family..The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices AK Sikri, S Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah in an appeal filed by convict Khushwinder Singh against the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court..Sessions Court convicted the appellant-accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 364, 201 and 380 of the IPC. It imposed the death penalty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The Sessions Court also imposed other punishments for the other offences for which he was convicted. Sessions Court also passed an order that all the sentences to run consequently..The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. The High Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court, including the death sentence..This led to the appeal in Supreme Court..Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court did not properly appreciate and/or consider the fact that there were material contradictions in the evidence. It was argued that there were contradictions in the depositions of PW-5 and 13 other witnesses examined by the prosecution. Such contradictions were 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..It was further submitted that it was a case of planting of false witnesses; there was planting of recoveries such as cash and keys as was evidenced by material contradictions between the versions of different prosecution witnesses..The counsel for the State, however, contended that the prosecution had successfully proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt..It was submitted that on appreciation and re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, both the Sessions Court as well as the High Court rightly held the accused guilty for having killed the six persons..The findings recorded by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court are on appreciation of the evidence. The same is neither perverse nor contrary to the materials on record, the State argued..The State also submitted that the 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’..The Court after going through the material on record and considering the submissions of the parties held that the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court are on appreciation of the evidence..“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.”.In the present case, six persons out of seven members of a family were killed by the accused. Even PW-5 was 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, the Court said..The accused was last seen together with the deceased Gurinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Singh. Thereafter, the aforesaid three persons were not seen alive by anyone. The dead body of Gurinder Singh was found by the police on June 29, 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, the Court said..Regarding the contradictions pointed out by the accused, the Court observed that the same were pointed out to both the Sessions Court and the High Court by the accused. Both the courts below considered the same in detail and concluded that they were not fatal to the case..“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 there might be minor contradictions, but they are not fatal to the prosecution case and/or they will not make the prosecution case false.”.Minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence, the Court ruled placing reliance on earlier decisions..In the instant case, the Court concluded that there are no material contradictions which affected 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 anything from her cross-examination which may affect the case of the prosecution and/or which may doubt her trustworthiness..The Court, therefore, upheld the conviction of the accused..Regarding the imposition of death penalty, the Court noted that the accused 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. The killings were done in a pre-planned manner..The Court adverted to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2017) 6 SCC 1], and held that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstance in this case. Hence, it held that this case would fall within the category of “rarest of rare” case warranting the death penalty. It even stated that no alternative punishment would be suitable except the penalty..“…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.”.Hence, the appeal was dismissed..Read the judgment below.
