CASE NAME: BAJINDER KUMAR @ KALA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
CASE NUMBER: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2688-2689 OF 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: JULY 16, 2025
JUDGES: HON’BLE JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL & SANDEEP MEHTA
Introduction
Early in the morning of November 29, 2013, in a peaceful village of Kapurthala district, Punjab, a ghastly event took place: a father was accused of killing his wife, sister-in-law, and two small children (around 1.5–6 years old), and seriously injuring his mother-in-law and another minor child. The appellant, Baljinder Kumar @ Kala, was apprehended, tried, and found guilty under Sections 302, 307, 450, and 458 of the IPC. He was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, a sentence which the High Court of Punjab & Haryana upheld. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
- Are the testimonies of key witnesses—PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (the mother), and PW17 (the injured child)—credible and sufficient for conviction?
- Did the prosecution establish a valid connection between the accused and the crime scene through reliable evidence and proper investigation?
- Was the High Court right in invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act to infer unfavourably against the accused?
- Were there procedural and evidentiary failures in the investigation and trial such that the conviction should not be upheld?
Legal Provisions Involved
- Sections 302, 307, 450, 458 IPC – Dealing with murder, attempt to murder, and grievous trespass.
- Section 106, Evidence Act – Presumption as to matters of special knowledge.
- Principles of reasonable doubt – Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on standards for capital cases.
Appellant’s Contention
Lack of Proven Motive: The appellant’s lawyer submitted that the monetary disagreement advanced as the motive was not proven. The key players in the transaction (Haria and the appellant’s sister) were not interrogated, rendering the motive speculative.
Inconsistencies in Testimonies of Witnesses: It was also highlighted that the PW1 and PW2 testimonies had contradictions in the presence of a witness, the weapon used, and the involvement of a third party. These were suspicions against the prosecution’s narrative.
Flawed Investigation and Feeble Recoveries: Arrest and recovery of clothes and weapons lacked independent witnesses. The disclosure statement was delayed by two months and was devoid of DNA or forensic support, diluting evidentiary credibility.
Failure to Establish Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: The above weaknesses indicate that the prosecution had failed to comply with the requirement of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, more so in a case of a death sentence.
Death Penalty Unwarranted: Even on the assumption of conviction, the case is not one falling in the “rarest of rare” category, rendering the award of the death sentence unjustified and excessive.
Respondent’s Contention
Credibility of Eyewitness: The State upheld the trial court’s conclusion that PW1, PW2, and a child witness (Harry) gave eyewitness testimonies. Minor discrepancies were claimed to be normal and not fatal to the case.
Prosecutorial Evidence: The recoveries of the blood-stained clothes and the instrument of murder were deemed credible and corroborative of the prosecution’s account. The availability of an injured eyewitness was highlighted to sustain the conviction.
Witness Testimony Reliability
PW1 (Vijay Kumar): First stated he had witnessed the accused with a “datar” from his own home, 10 km away, but subsequently changed his version to “gandasi” after the recovery of the weapon. He disagreed on whether he and his wife hurried to the scene because his mother raised an alarm or had come simply for tea. The High Court discredited his evidence because of inconsistent locational and sequencing details.
PW2 (Manjit Kaur): Testified to being an eyewitness who overheard the attack from the bathroom, spotted the accused, and then ran away, only after that, raising an alarm. She admitted that she took shelter under bushes and fainted, so it was unlikely that she witnessed the crime itself. She also altered her testimony about the arrival time of her son and daughter-in-law. These contradictions rendered her position as an eyewitness extremely questionable.
PW17 (Harry, the wounded child): He was injured at the scene but admitted that he was sleeping when attacked and never quite saw the accused perpetrating the crime — his evidence merely established being injured, not recognising the perpetrator.
Analysis
The weapon of murder, clothing, and bicycle were recovered after two months without independent witnesses or controlled chain of custody. Forensic testing only verified the existence of “human blood”; there was no DNA or fingerprint evidence that connected the weapon to the victims or the crime scene. Misplacement of the firearm and failure to exhibit it properly further diminishes its probative value. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the High Court placed the burden on the accused to account for his injuries after the incident. But the Supreme Court held that the reinstallation of the burden was incorrect, as it was imposed without establishing a prima facie foundation linking the accused to the crime scene — a necessity under Sec. 106. The Supreme Court ruled that significant inconsistencies between witness testimonies, absence of credible eye identification by witnesses, and considerable gaps in forensic proof implied the prosecution had not met the threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The chain of events was broken, and the accused could not be definitively put at the site.
Judgment
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, quashed the convictions and death penalty, and acquitted Baljinder Kumar @ Kala of all offences. The accused, who had already served more than eleven years in prison, was directed to be released forthwith unless needed in some other case.
Conclusion
This case is a stark illustration of the need for trustworthy eyewitness identification, prompt and recorded recoveries, and sound forensic evidence, particularly in capital murder cases. The Court reaffirmed its devotion to the tenet that even in instances of extreme violence, guilt should be determined with legal accuracy, not speculation. The ruling enforces that when the evidence is inadequate or conflicting, advantage must accrue to the accused — a bedrock principle of justice.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY AYUSHI TRIVEDI
