Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today(July 16) acquitted a death penalty convict, who has suffered more than eleven years of incarceration, on the grounds that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted of killing four members of the family, including his wife, sister-in-law and his two children below the age of five, in his village home in 2013, owing to nursing a grudge against his family due to some financial dispute.

He was convicted to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, in 2020, for falling under the 'rarest of rare' category, which was then upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in 2024.

Observing that the case of the prosecution has major contradictions in the testimonies, accompanied by glaring investigative defects, a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta reiterated that the standard of proof is absolutely strict and it cannot be compromised with.

The court has remarked that since the matter garnered some sensation, it put pressure on the investigation agencies to find the culprit, ultimately leading to a shoddy investigation. It equally blamed the trial court and the high court for their hasty decisions in delivering justice, because of which a man, against whom there is no sufficient evidence, ended up on death row.

The Court found that the prosecution's case relies on the testimonies of the brother (complainant) of the Appellant's wife, the mother-in-law of the Appellant, and the Appellant's minor son, since the incident had happened in the complainant's house where her sister was residing after having left Appellant's house.

The complainant had alleged that he was present at the spot along with his mother, who was the eyewitness. However, these testimonies have major contradictions in terms of the presence of the complainant.

Further, as for the complainant's mother, the court finds contradictions in the testimony of the complainant who says her mother was in the Gurudwara, whereas, in her statement, she says she was hiding due to the fear of the Appellant. Additionally, the court found that while initially the complainant alleged that the Appellant was carrying 'datar,' later he changed it to 'gandasi'.

Lastly, none of the recoveries made by the prosecution, such as the weapon or the blood-stained clothes, were corroborated by independent witnesses.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Nath set aside the final order and judgment of conviction passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, as well as the trial court's judgment. It said that the trial court and the high court were grossly wrong in brushing aside these contradictions as 'minor' whereas, these were contradictions of material particulars.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court had acquitted another death convict, citing faulty investigation.

Case Title: BALJINDER KUMAR@KALA v. STATE OF PUNJAB|CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2688-2689 OF 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 711

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for Appellant, and Advocate Siddhant Sharma, for State of Punjab

The Square Circle Clinic, NALSAR University of Law, provided legal assistance to the appellant.