LexKHUSHWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R. KHUSHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal Nos.1433-1434 of 2014) 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 of 6 persons – By kidnapping them and drugging them with sleeping tablets and then drowning them in a canal – Conviction by courts below – Death sentence imposed – On appeal, held: The prosecution has proved the case against the accused by cogent evidence – The case is proved by eye-witness, independent witness and the witness before whom the accused made extra-judicial confession – The witnesses are trustworthy and reliable – There are no material contradiction which may affect the prosecution case – The accused was last seen together with three of the deceased – Recovery of drug at the instance of the accused is proved – Recovery of cash and ornaments and key of the house of the deceased from the house of the accused at his instance prove the motive for the murder – The findings 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 the murder of 6 innocent persons with extreme brutality in a planned manner – On striking a balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, aggravating circumstances tilt in favour of capital punishment – Therefore, capital punishment/death sentence does not warrant any interference and is upheld – Sentence/ Sentencing – Death Sentence. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The prosecution has proved the case against the 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 [2019] 3 S.C.R. 446 446 A B C D E F G H 447 occurrence which was first in time; PW-8 the ex-Sarpanch; PW-9 before whom extra-judicial confession was made and also by examining several police witnesses, including PW-7, the investigating officer. By and large, these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. [Para 9.4] [461-E-F] 1.2 The accused was last seen together with deceased husband, mother and brother of PW5 on 25/26.06.2012 at about 2.30 a.m. Thereafter, the aforesaid three persons were not seen alive by anyone. 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 and examining PW-8, the ex-Sarpanch. [Para 9.3] [461-D] 1.3 Minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. Every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. In the present case, the witnesses who were examined by the prosecution are trustworthy and reliable. There are no material contradictions which may affect 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. PW-14 is an independent witness to whom the occurrence was narrated by PW-5. Even PW-8 and PW-9 are also independent witnesses. Nothing has been 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. KHUSHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB A B C D E F G H 448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R. 1.4 There are also recoveries of cash and ornaments from the house of the accused which were recovered at the instance of the accused. The recoveries regarding memos etc. have been proved by the prosecution. Even the keys of the house of the victims were found from the house of the accused. The ornaments and the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.