The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the conviction of a man sentence for killing four members of his family, including his two minor children, in 2013, Saying the prosecution has failed to estably. Reasonable Doubt.
A bench of justice Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta Said “There are major contradictions in the Testimonies of Key Prosecution Witnesses, accompanied by Glaring Investment Defects” In the case.
Writing for the bench, justice nath said, “The standard of proof is an absolute one and can be faltered with. Sincereity, give the facts and in the light of the question, we cannot to hold the accused guilty of the charged off. Beyond a reasonable double. “
As per the prosecution, baljinder kumar alias kala killed his wife, daughter-in-law and injured two others on November 29, 2013 in Punjab’s Kapurthala. He was angry with his mother-in-law who had arranged his sister’s margin, which did not work out, and stood as a guarantor for a payment of RS 35,000 maintenance to his signter After divorce, but the payments.
Baljinder had fights with his wife who left for her mother’s Home with their childhood on November 17, 2013. Prosecution claimed.
A trial court in 2020 convicted baljinder and sentenceed him to death, which was upheld by the punjab and haryana high court in march 2024.
The sc in its order pointed to contradictions in the testimony of key prosecution withness (PWS). After Examining the Statement of PW1 and PW2, it concluded that “PW2’s presence at the crime scene as an eyewitness is highly improble as she is more self-compulsory about the unfolds on thatf. Morning, her existence as an eyewitness. “
Story Continues Below this ad
It said that “These jarring inconsistencies suggest that statement of pw2 is highly shaky, varies at every other turn and is not reliable at all”.
The judgment also also Said PW1/Complainant, “While getting the fir registered, had stated that the accused was carrying a ‘datar’ while the crime scene. Recorded after the alleged recovery of the weapon… pw1 readily changed his stance and stated to have seen the accused carrying a ‘gandasi’. “
The SC Said, “It must be noted that the two weapons are considering and visibly different, and a Rural Individual, especially Such as PW1 HIMSELF, is understood to be adept in such. Ordinarily miss one for the other. “
The court said, “The trial court as well as the high court has very conveniently brushed aside such contradictions in the testimonies of pw1 and pw2 by Holding that minor contacts do not get of prosecution. Unable to succumb to the view of categorising Above-Discussed contradictions as “minor.”
Story Continues Below this ad
It adds, “In the instant case, there are different versions of the same sets which are being told by these witnesses at different points Differences are leading to material alterations as a result, the fundamental details are not at all corresponded between. Therefore, we observe that contradictions in prosecutions’ testimonies, as pointed about, are major ones and carve a gaping hole in the prosecution story altogether. “
The Court Further Said, “We cannot turn a blind eye to the obvious inconsistencies in the depositions of its main witnesses, which indicate thought, coaching and coaching, rend threat. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that no credence can be lent to the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and their account of being ‘Eyewitness’ to the instance or having seen the account. “
On the testimony of a child withness who was injured in the attack, the court said he did not actually witness the incidence. In his cross-sexamination… he stated that he did not see the appellant as he was half-basep. “He specifically stated that he did not see the appellant inflicting injuries on the Deceased Persons”. Therefore, even if his “Testimony is treated as completed, it is clear that his statement can be consided as incited as the appellant for the lack of having witness.”