SUSHIL KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 1082 · Decided: 01-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (AOOL.) $.C.R. 1082 
A 
SUSHIL KUMAR 
J..-
v. 
, 
' 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2009) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
¥ 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Murder - Accused allegedly 
'·~ 
murdered his wife and children and thereafter got himself 
~ 
c admitted in hospital - Evidence of prosecution witnessesiiJ --
conformity with each other - No doubt about the credibility of 
witnesses - Prosecution witnesses having cordial relations with 
the accused hence case of false implication not made out -
Plea of alibi taken by accused not found to be truthful -
0 Prosecution able to establish case· against him - Death 
-..It 
sentence awarded by courts below however altered to life 
• 
impris01:iment as accused was not a habitual offender -
Sentence/Sentencing. 
E 
·Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, PW-2 
brother of deceased received call from appellant at 6 a.m. 
The appellant ·informed PW-2 that he was admitted in 
hospital and asked PW-2 to visit his house to see well 
i 
being of his family. Thereafter appellant disconnected the 
phone. When PW-2 reached house of appellant, he found 
" 
F wife and children of appellant dead. PW-2 again received 
call from appellant at 6.45 a.m. PW-2. enquired from hirn 
about the incident but appellant again snapped the 
~> 
phone. PW-2 later came to know that appellant had 
' 
consumed 'sulphas tablets' and got himself admitted in 
G 
hosplt~I. During interrogation, appellant made a 
disclosure memo. Pursuant thereto, a blood stained knife 
'r-
allegedly used for commission of offence was . recovered · 
;.--... 
at his instance·. The trial court rejected the plea of alibi 
·. raised by appellant on account of serious contradiction 
H 
1082 
.. 
SUSHIL KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
1083 
--...l . in his statement and convicted him u/s.302 IPC and 
A 
passed death sentence, which was affirmed by High 
- Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Microscopic examination of the evidence of B 
PW-5, the mother of deceased and that of PW•2 would 
show that they were in conformity with each other. The 
~ \ evidence of PW-2 was in line with F.l.R. and his statement 
given to the police. Apart from minor discrepancies which 
are bound to appear in a natural course of conduct of a C 
normal human being, there were no serious material 
discrepancies in the evidence in order to completely 
discard their evidence. There is no reason to doubt the 
credibility of all these witnesses. There is no reason why 
~ they would falsely try to implicate the appellant. Nothing 
D 
was shown on record that these witnesses were having 
strained relations with the appellant. On the other hand, 
' . 
it was clearly made out from the evidence that they were 
having cordial relations and were visiting each other quite 
often. [Paras 27 and 29] [1094-8-E] 
2. It is manifest from the evidence that the appellant 
t had got himself admitted in Civil Hospital on 4.3.2005 and 
was under treatment. According to the doctor.PW-10, the 
• 
appellant was admitted on 4.2.2005 at about 6.30 a.m. and 
was discharged on 7 .3.2005. The doctor was not able to 
conclusively say that any Sulphas tablet was taken by the 
appellant or not.· He deposed that after taking tablets, it 
E 
F 
is difficult to survive for a long period. Appellant did not 
offer any explanation as to where was he before his 
admission in the hospital on the fateful day. Plea of alibi G 
taken by him was not found to be truthful as the same 
..,.."{ stood falsified from the evidence of PW-4 who had seen 
him coming out of his own house at 5.00 a.m. This was 
only indicative of the fact that after commission of the 
H 
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009)-13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A alleged crime, he got himself admitted in the Civil 
Hospital. It is certain that he had committed the crime 
-" )..,_ 
sometime in night,and then got himself admitted in the 
hospital at 6.30 a.m. Looking to the totality of the facts and 
features of the case and keeping in view the evidence 
B available on record, there is no doubt that the offence 
.r 
was committed by the appellant only. [Paras 30-32 and 
36] [1094-F-H; 1095-A-B; 1096-0-E] 
Bachan Singh v. State of.Punjab and others (1980) 2 
~-
J --< 
c SCC 684; Machhi Singh & Ors_. v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 
SCC 470; Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 19; 
Bablu @ Mubaraik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan (-2006) 13 
SCC 116; State of 

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