LexBALJINDER KUMAR @ KALA versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1070 : 2025 INSC 856 Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2688-2689 of 2024) 16 July 2025 [Vikram Nath,* Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the courts below erred in convicting the appellant for offences u/ss.302, 308 and 325, Penal Code, 1860 and imposing death sentence on him, when the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Headnotes† Evidence – Charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Courts below strongly relying upon the testimonies of three witnesses PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (alleged eyewitness) and PW17 (injured child witness), convicted the appellant for the murder of his wife, two children and sister-in-law and imposed death sentence – Sustainability: Held: Impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Trial Court are quashed and set aside – In order to record conviction based on ocular evidence, the testimonies have to be completely credible and trustworthy – However, in the present case, there are major contradictions and embellishments in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses accompanied by glaring investigative defects/ lapses leading to gaps in the evidentiary chain – Nothing to link the appellant to the scene of the crime – Prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 308 and 325. [Paras 38, 41, 43, 44] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Adverse inference, when cannot be drawn – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 308 and 325 – Appellant-accused was convicted for the murder of his wife, two children and sister-in-law – High Court drew adverse inference against the accused as regards his silence and absence of any alternative explanation about the injuries sustained by him on the day of the incident which led him to * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1071 Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab getting admitted in the hospital later on the same day causing consequent amputation of his left arm, and presumed that the said injuries were a result of the resistance that he must have faced during the commission of the crime earlier in the day – Sustainability: Held: Prosecution has not been able to establish the presence of accused at the site of crime through direct, circumstantial, oral or forensic evidence thus, taking recourse to s.106 and employing it against the accused in a detrimental manner in the absence of any foundational facts, is unwarranted – Neither PW1 nor PW2, in their statement stated anything about the accused of having suffered an arm injury while he was allegedly spotted at the crime scene – Therefore, no opportunity arises to shift the burden of proof on the appellant so as to reasonably explain his injury and thereby, no adverse inference can be drawn. [Para 39] Evidence – Contradictions in testimonies, material discrepancies – Testimonies not to be relied upon – Appellant- accused was convicted for the murder of his wife, two children and sister-in-law, relying upon the testimonies of three witnesses PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (alleged eyewitness) and PW17 (injured child witness): Held: Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness – Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person – When witness testimonies exhibit significant contradictions between their initial statements and trial depositions, they cannot be relied upon unless independently corroborated – In the present case, the contradictions in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies are major ones and carve a gaping hole in the prosecution story altogether – The internal inconsistencies and lack of corroboration cast serious doubts and snatch away the degree of accuracy that is to be attained while determining the culpability of an accused in cases of murder – There are obvious inconsistencies in the depositions of the main witnesses indicating deliberate embellishment and coaching, rendering these testimonies unreliable – Therefore, no credence can be lent to the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and their account of being “eyewitness” to the incident or having seen the accused is discarded – Statements of PW1 and PW2 inspire no confidence and their presence at the scene of occurrence is disbelieved – Further, the testimony of 1072 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports PW17 (child w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.