KULWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 891 · Decided: 06-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

f ... 
KUL WINDER SINGH 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF PUNJAB 
AUGUST 6, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 and 366: 
Murder-Accused allegedly attempted to commit rape and then 
strangulated sister of the complainant and also gave gandasi blows on his C 
grandmother-Both the injured succumbed to injuries-Trial Court found the 
accused guilty of committing murder sentencing him to death-Maintaining 
conviction of the accused u!s. 302, High Court set aside death sentence and 
. remitted the matter to trial Court for reconsideration on quantum of sentence-
·On appeal, Held: Oral evidence of complainant-PW6 that accused inflicting D 
gandasi blow on the neck of his grandmother and his sister lying with 
injuries on the floor of the room are credible-Even assuming that more than 
one person attacked the deceased, the accused was certainly one of them-
From the facts, it appears that the accused first wanted to rape/molest the 
sister of the complainant and on her resistance he killed her-Later, when 
the grandmother of the victim came, the accused also eliminated her so as E 
to leave no witness-The crime weapon, the Locket and the clothes recovered 
at the instance of the accused and finger prints thereon point to his guilt-
Hence, the conviction u/s. 302 upheld-However, the sentence reduced to life 
imprisonment since. the crime committed does not fall within the category of 
rarest of rare cases. 
Maxims: 
Maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'-Applicablity of-Held: Not 
applicable in criminal cases in India. 
F 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day when PW6 was going G 
from his house towards his Haveli for feeding his cattle, he heard the shrieks 
of'Bachao-,.Bachao' of his grand-mother from the fodder room in the Haveli. 
He saw the accused inflicting gandasi blows on the neck of his grandmother. 
On seeing him, the accused ran away from the spot carrying the gandasi with 
891 
fl 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A him. In the room, he also found that his sister was lying in the injured 
condi!_!on writhing in pain. Both the injured narrated about the incident that 
accus~d had entered the room for committing rape upon his sister, and on 
her resistance, the accused had put her chuni around the neck and 
strangulated her. Soon after making the statement, both the injured 
succumbed to their injuries. An FIR was lodged by the complainant in the 
B police station. Accused was arrested by the police and sent for medical 
examination. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for 
committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 
The trial court held that the presence of the complainant (PW6) at the spot 
was established beyond doubt and that the case against the accused proved 
C beyond doubt and found him guilty of committing the murder. On the quantum 
of sentence, the Court observed that the conduct of the accused depicted him 
as a person who constituted a threat to ordered society and that he had forfeited 
his right to life by his barbarity and accordingly sentenced him to death. The 
Court forwarded the reference to the High Court under Section 366 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the death sentence. The High 
D Court maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, but. 
set asi<Je the d_eath sentence and remitted the matter to the trial Court to 
reconsider the matter on quantum of sentence. Hence the present appeal. 
Accused-appellant ~ontended that the complainant is the sole witness 
E and he cannot be regarded as a truthful witness; that in the FIR the 
complainant stated that both the deceased had made dying declarations to him, 
but in the evidence he stated that only her sister had done so, however, she 
was not in a position to speak on account of the extensive injuries on her 
body; and that there were 14 injuries on the body of sister of the complainant 
and 16 injuries on the body of his grandmother and that could not possibJy be 
F made by one person, thus, there were more than one person who attacked the 
deceased. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Even if the dying declarations are disbelieved, yet the oral 
G evidence of the Complainant to the extent that he saw the appellant inflicting 
gandasi blows on the neck of his grandmother, one of the deceased, and that 
he saw his sister, another deceased, lying with injuries on tne floor of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.