Conviction for murder cannot rest on contradictory eyewitnesses and uncorroborated recoveries; without reliable foundational facts, Section 106 Evidence Act cannot shift burden to accused, and death sentence is unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. One can fairly imagine the amplitude of havoc that would wreak loose in a quiet village which on one fine morning wakes up to the news of four members of a family dead, including two lives yet to even reach the incipient age of five years, and with two other family members grievously injured. To add to the horror, the primary suspect in the entire incident is the father of the deceased children. At least, that is what the alleged eyewitnesses’ account points towards. It is but natural that the case garners enough sensation in no time to become a headline in the local papers and the pressure on the investigating agencies is enormous to find the culprit. The breakdown of the legal system becomes apparent when such haste to lay a finger of blame on somebody leads to a shoddy investigation and a poorly conducted trial. The result is a loosely tied prosecution case with glaring loopholes all across and yet the Courts’ enthusiasm to deliver justice in such a heinous crime ensures that the accused person ends up on the death row, albeit without sufficient evidence. This is precisely the misery which the instant case entails.

2. The present appeals have been preferred by the accused-appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in MRC No. 1 of 2020 and CRA-D No. 323 of 2020. The High Court, vide the impugned order, has upheld the conviction and confirmed the sentence of death imposed on the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, on 29.02.2020 in Case No. SC/64/2014, under Sections 302, 308 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC, hereinafter].

Factual Background –

3. The case of the prosecution is that in the early morning of 29.11.2013, PW1–Vijay Kumar (“the complainant”) saw the appellant outside his mother’s (PW2–Manjit Kaur) house armed with a datar, wherein the appellant told the complainant that “he has finished what he had started”, and fled away with 3-4 unidentified persons who were armed with a gandasi and rods. On entering PW2’s house, the complainant found his following relatives in injured condition – (i) Seema Rani aged 26 years (sister of PW1; wife of the appellant), (ii) Reena Rani aged 28 years (sister of PW1; sister-in- law of the appellant), (iii) Harry aged 5 years (son of Seema Rani from her first marriage; adopted son of Reena Rani; step-son of the appellant), (iv) Sumani Kumari aged 3-4 years (daughter born out of the wedlock between Seema Rani and the appellant), (v) Harsh aged 1.5-2 years (son born out of the wedlock between Seema Rani and the appellant), and (vi) Om Prakash @ Tari aged 18 years (brother of PW1). PW1 called an ambulance, and all the six injured persons were taken to the hospital where Seema Rani, Reena Rani, Sumani Kumari and Harsh were declared brought dead while Harry and Om Prakash @ Tari were admitted at the hospital.

4. The FIR was registered at 11.15 a.m. on 29.11.2013 itself under Sections 302, 323 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Satnampura, Kapurthala by S.I. Karnail Singh (‘Investigating Officer/IO’) on receiving a telephonic message from the Civil Hospital, Phagwara. On 15.02.2014, on receipt of opinion from the doctor regarding nature of injuries on the person of injured Om Prakash and Harry, the offence was enhanced under Section