Supreme Court sets aside death penalty citing major witness contradictions. Says guilt not proved “beyond reasonable doubt” in 2013 family murder case.
New Delhi: Today, on July 16, the Supreme Court of India acquitted a man who had been sentenced to death for allegedly murdering his family in 2013, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The top court emphasized that in cases involving human life, the justice system must operate with the utmost care and sincerity.
ALSO READ: Special Category Status for Transgenders in Employment and Education: Madras HC
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta overturned the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had upheld the death sentence awarded to the accused, Baljinder.
The Supreme Court took a strong stand on the importance of the standard of proof in criminal cases, especially where the death penalty is involved.
The bench observed:
“At the cost of repetition, we must state that the standard of proof is an absolutely strict one and cannot be faltered with. When at stake are human lives and the cost is blood, the matter needs to be dealt with utmost sincerity.”
The bench pointed out several “major contradictions” in the statements made by the key prosecution witnesses, leading them to doubt the entire version of the incident presented by the prosecution.
ALSO READ: 5 States Set Up Transgender Welfare Boards After Supreme Court’s Order
The Court stated:
“We cannot bring ourselves to hold the accused-appellant guilty of the charged offence as his guilt has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
According to the prosecution, Baljinder had killed his wife, their young children, and his sister-in-law on November 29, 2013, and also seriously injured two other family members.
The case arose after Baljinder reportedly visited his mother-in-law’s house a few days before the incident and allegedly threatened to kill his wife and children due to an ongoing dispute involving money.
The prosecution said that a financial matter involving Rs 35,000 had caused repeated quarrels between Baljinder and his wife.
The amount was supposed to be paid to Baljinder and his sister by her ex-husband as part of a divorce settlement. Since Baljinder’s mother-in-law had stood as a guarantor for the repayment of the sum, and when the amount was not returned, it became a constant source of conflict.
ALSO READ: SC Seeks Response From Centre On Reservation For Transgender
The Supreme Court, however, noted that the testimonies of the two key prosecution witnesses had inconsistencies. Their versions of the events differed over time and seemed to change as per convenience.
The court remarked:
“As a result, the prosecution timeline and the fundamental details about the occurrence are not at all corroborated between its two key witnesses. Therefore, we observe that the contradictions in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, as pointed above, are major ones and carve a gaping hole in the prosecution story altogether.”
This judgment highlights the seriousness with which the Supreme Court treats the death penalty and its concern for ensuring that no one is punished unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Case Title:
Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Click Here to Read More Reports On Blood
