LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death penalty was justified in a case involving the murder of six members of a family. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Khushwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab. Judgment Date: March 5, 2019.
Date of the Judgment: March 5, 2019. Citation: (2019) INSC 178. Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., M. R. Shah, J. The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed the heinous crime of mass murder, specifically focusing on whether the death penalty was warranted. The core issue revolved around the confirmation of a death sentence imposed on an individual who had murdered six members of a family. The bench comprised Justices A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, and M.R. Shah, who delivered a unanimous verdict.
Case Background
The case originated from a complaint filed by Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5), whose family was tragically decimated. In 2005, Jasmeen Kaur married Rupinder Singh and had two children. Due to issues with her in-laws, she resided with her family in Mukandpur. Her brother, Gurinder Singh, struggled with alcohol addiction. The accused, Khushwinder Singh, a relative, offered to help, claiming he knew a ‘Baba’ who could cure addiction and a travel agent who could send Rupinder Singh abroad. Over three months, Khushwinder Singh gained the family’s trust, eventually taking Rs. 2,00,000 and Rupinder Singh’s passport under the pretext of arranging his travel to Canada. He also suggested a ritual (“Dhala”) to help Gurinder Singh quit drinking.
On June 25, 2012, Khushwinder Singh visited Jasmeen Kaur’s house, stating that the “Dhala” ritual needed to be done at 2:30 AM. He took Paramjit Kaur (Jasmeen’s mother), Gurinder Singh, and Rupinder Singh with him. Jasmeen’s father, Gurmail Singh, also accompanied them to visit a Gurudwara. The next day, June 26, 2012, Khushwinder Singh returned, informing Jasmeen Kaur that he had left the three with the ‘Baba’. He then asked Jasmeen, her father, and her two children to join him for another ritual in the evening. During this trip, he forced Gurmail Singh to drink liquor and then took them near a canal, where he pushed Jasmeen and her father into the water. Jasmeen managed to survive, but her father and children were missing. She believed that Khushwinder Singh had deceived her family and killed them for their money, as they had recently sold land for Rs. 37,00,000.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Jasmeen Kaur marries Rupinder Singh. |
| Prior to the incident | Jasmeen Kaur and her family reside in Mukandpur due to issues with in-laws. |
| Prior to the incident | Khushwinder Singh offers to help with Gurinder Singh’s addiction and Rupinder Singh’s travel plans. |
| About three months prior to the incident | Khushwinder Singh takes Rs. 2,00,000 and Rupinder Singh’s passport. |
| June 25, 2012, 6:00 PM | Khushwinder Singh visits Jasmeen Kaur’s house, stating that the “Dhala” ritual needed to be done at 2:30 AM. |
| June 25, 2012, 2:30 AM | Khushwinder Singh takes Paramjit Kaur, Gurinder Singh, and Rupinder Singh with him. |
| June 26, 2012, 11:30 AM | Khushwinder Singh returns, informing Jasmeen Kaur that he had left the three with the ‘Baba’. |
| June 26, 2012, 6:30 PM | Khushwinder Singh takes Jasmeen, her father, and her two children for another ritual. |
| June 26, 2012, 9:30 PM | Khushwinder Singh pushes Jasmeen and her father into the canal. Jasmeen survives. |
| June 27, 2012, 11:30 AM | Formal FIR registered based on Jasmeen Kaur’s statement. |
| June 29, 2012 | The dead body of Gurinder Singh was found by the police. |
| August 1, 2012 | Jasmeen Kaur’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). |
| September 29, 2012 | The case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the learned Sessions Court. |
| March 15, 2013 | The Sessions Court convicts Khushwinder Singh and imposes the death penalty. |
| September 20, 2013 | The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirms the death penalty. |
| March 5, 2019 | Supreme Court upholds the death penalty. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Court of Fatehgarh Sahib charged Khushwinder Singh under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 364 (kidnapping), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 380 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution presented both oral and documentary evidence, including testimonies from Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5), SI Shamsher Singh (PW-7), and others. Khushwinder Singh denied the charges, claiming that Gurinder Singh, under the influence of alcohol, had thrown the family into the canal and later committed suicide. The Sessions Court convicted him and imposed the death penalty for murder. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed this decision. Khushwinder Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
- Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for kidnapping.
- Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for causing disappearance of evidence.
- Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for theft in a dwelling house.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that there were material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the time the police arrived at the scene and the registration of the FIR.
- He contended that the prosecution had planted false witnesses and fabricated recoveries of cash, keys, and ornaments.
- The appellant claimed that the recovery of Anzilum tablets was also fabricated, and that the chemical analysis report did not detect any poison in the samples.
- He further argued that the motive attributed to him was not believable.
- In the alternative, the appellant argued that the case did not warrant the death penalty and requested it be commuted to life imprisonment.
State’s Arguments:
- The State argued that the prosecution had successfully proven the case beyond reasonable doubt.
- They emphasized that Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5) was an eyewitness and that the accused was last seen with the deceased.
- The State contended that the recoveries of money, ornaments, and Anzilum tablets were made at the instance of the accused himself.
- They argued that the motive for the crime was to steal Rs. 37,00,000 and that the accused had meticulously planned the murders.
- The State asserted that the aggravating circumstances justified the death penalty, given the heinous nature of the crime.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Material Contradictions in Prosecution Witnesses | Contradictions in time of police arrival and FIR registration | Appellant |
| Inconsistencies between PW-5, PW-7, PW-8, PW-11, PW-14, and PW-17 | Appellant | |
| Discrepancies in witness testimonies weaken the prosecution case | Appellant | |
| Planted Evidence and Recoveries | False witnesses and fabricated recoveries of cash and keys | Appellant |
| Planted recovery of ornaments | Appellant | |
| Planted recovery of Anzilum tablets | Appellant | |
| Motive and Chemical Analysis | Motive attributed to the accused is not believable | Appellant |
| Chemical analysis did not detect poison | Appellant | |
| Prosecution’s Case | PW-5 is an eye-witness and the accused was last seen with the deceased | State |
| Recoveries of money, ornaments and Anzilum tablets were made at the instance of the accused | State | |
| Motive for the crime was to steal Rs. 37,00,000 | State | |
| Aggravating circumstances justify the death penalty | State |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 364, 201 and 380 of the IPC.
- Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the death sentence imposed by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 364, 201 and 380 of the IPC. | Upheld the conviction. | The Court found the evidence credible, including the testimony of the eyewitness (PW-5), the recovery of stolen items, and the accused being last seen with the victims. Minor contradictions were deemed not fatal to the prosecution’s case. |
| Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the death sentence imposed by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. | Upheld the death sentence. | The Court determined that the case fell under the “rarest of rare” category due to the heinous nature of the crime, the pre-planned manner of the murders, and the vulnerability of the victims, including two minors. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2007) 11 SCC 195 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies should not be given undue importance, and the focus should be on the trustworthiness of the evidence. |
| Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to determine that the present case fell under the “rarest of rare” category, justifying the death penalty. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Material Contradictions in Prosecution Witnesses | The Court found that the contradictions were minor and did not affect the core of the prosecution’s case. The witnesses were deemed trustworthy and reliable. |
| Planted Evidence and Recoveries | The Court held that the recoveries of cash, ornaments, and Anzilum tablets were made at the instance of the accused and were credible. |
| Motive and Chemical Analysis | The Court found the motive for the crime to be established. The absence of poison detection was not considered fatal to the prosecution’s case. |
| PW-5 is an eye-witness and the accused was last seen with the deceased | The Court upheld the prosecution’s argument that PW-5 was a credible eye-witness and that the accused was last seen with the deceased. |
| Recoveries of money, ornaments and Anzilum tablets were made at the instance of the accused | The Court upheld the prosecution’s argument that the recoveries were made at the instance of the accused and were credible. |
| Motive for the crime was to steal Rs. 37,00,000 | The Court upheld the prosecution’s argument that the motive for the crime was to steal Rs. 37,00,000 and that the accused had meticulously planned the murders. |
| Aggravating circumstances justify the death penalty | The Court agreed with the prosecution that the aggravating circumstances justified the death penalty. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2007) 11 SCC 195* | The Court followed this authority to emphasize that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies should not be given undue importance. |
| Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1* | The Court relied on this authority to determine that the present case fell under the “rarest of rare” category, justifying the death penalty. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the heinous nature of the crime, the meticulous planning involved, and the extreme vulnerability of the victims. The Court emphasized the following points:
- The cold-blooded murder of six members of a family, including two minors.
- The pre-planned and deceptive manner in which the accused executed the murders.
- The fact that the accused first kidnapped three members of the family, drugged them, and then pushed them into the canal.
- The fact that the accused then killed another three members of the family in the second stage/instalment.
- The recovery of stolen cash and ornaments from the accused’s residence.
- The eyewitness account of Jasmeen Kaur, who survived the attack.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Heinous Nature of Crime | 30% |
| Meticulous Planning | 25% |
| Vulnerability of Victims | 20% |
| Recovery of Stolen Items | 15% |
| Eyewitness Account | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the arguments against the death penalty, but ultimately concluded that the extreme brutality and pre-planned nature of the crime warranted no other punishment. The Court emphasized that the collective conscience of society would be shocked if a lesser punishment were imposed.
The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, stating, “The crime is committed with extremist brutality and the collective conscious of the society would be shocked.” The Court also noted, “In the present case, the accused has killed six innocent persons in a pre-planned manner.” and “The aggravating circumstances are in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court affirmed that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine the prosecution’s case if the core evidence is reliable.
- The Court reiterated that the death penalty is reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases, where the crime is exceptionally heinous and pre-planned.
- The judgment highlights the importance of eyewitness testimony and the recovery of stolen items in establishing guilt.
- The Court emphasized that the collective conscience of the society would be shocked if a lesser punishment were imposed in such a heinous crime.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the death penalty is justified in cases of extreme brutality and pre-planned murders, especially when multiple lives are taken and the crime shocks the collective conscience of society. This case reinforces the “rarest of rare” doctrine as established in previous Supreme Court judgments.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for Khushwinder Singh, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The Court found that the accused had committed a heinous crime by murdering six members of a family in a pre-planned and brutal manner. The judgment underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring justice in cases of extreme violence and reinforces the “rarest of rare” doctrine for the imposition of the death penalty.
Category
- Criminal Law
- Murder
- Kidnapping
- Theft
- Attempt to Murder
- Causing Disappearance of Evidence
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 380, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Capital Punishment
- Rarest of Rare Doctrine
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Khushwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab case?
A: The main issue was whether the death penalty was justified for the murder of six members of a family.
Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty, confirming the decisions of the lower courts.
Q: What were the key factors that led the Supreme Court to uphold the death penalty?
A: The key factors included the heinous nature of the crime, the pre-planned and deceptive manner of the murders, the vulnerability of the victims (including two minors), and the shock to the collective conscience of society.
Q: What does the “rarest of rare” doctrine mean?
A: The “rarest of rare” doctrine means that the death penalty should only be imposed in the most extreme cases of murder where the crime is exceptionally brutal and shocking.
Q: What was the role of the eyewitness in this case?
A: Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5), an eyewitness who survived the attack, provided crucial testimony that helped establish the accused’s guilt.
Q: What was the motive for the crime?
A: The motive was primarily financial gain, as the accused wanted to steal Rs. 37,00,000 and other valuables from the victim’s family.