Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and life sentences of six accused, acquitted Kawaljit Singh, and declined to re‑impose the death penalty, finding the eye‑witness testimony reliable and common intention proved.

Summary

The case involved the murder of four members of a matrimonial family and the attempted murder of the sole eye‑witness, Rajvinder Kaur, who had secretly married a man of a lower caste. The prosecution relied on her testimony, which was given only after eight days due to trauma, and on the recovery of weapons and identity cards. The accused argued that the delayed identification, the pre‑arrest of some accused, and lack of common intention under s.120B IPC rendered the convictions unsafe, and that the death penalty imposed on four of them was unwarranted. The Supreme Court held that the eye‑witness’s delay was justified by her mental shock, that the arrests were not suspicious, and that a common intention to murder existed among the accused, except for Kawaljit Singh whose participation could not be proved. Applying the "rarest of rare" doctrine, the Court affirmed life imprisonment for the six convicted and acquitted Kawaljit Singh, while rejecting the State’s plea to reinstate the death penalty.

Issues considered

The credibility of the eye‑witness who delayed naming the accused
Whether the pre‑disclosure arrests of the accused were unlawful
Whether a common intention under s.120B IPC existed among the accused
The evidentiary sufficiency to convict accused No.5 (Kawaljit Singh)
The applicability of the "rarest of rare" doctrine for death penalty

Legislation cited

Arms Acts. 25(1), s. 25(3), s. 27(3)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 366, s. 392
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 302, s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

murderattempt to murdercommon intentioneye‑witness testimonydeath penaltyrarest of rare doctrinecaste‑based violencelife imprisonment

Judgment

~
A MAYAKAUR BALDEVSINGH SARDAR AND ANR. '
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

OCTOBER 8, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.]

~-
Penal Code, 1860-s. 302134-Prosecutionfor murder and
attempt to murder-Members ofparental family causing death ofthe
c members ofmatrimonialfamily ofthe injured eye-l-Yitness-Motive for
the assault being eye-witness marrying a person.from lower caste-
Severe injuries sustained by the eye-witness-As per medical evidence
she was under tremendous shock-Disclosure of the names of the
accused after eight days ofthe incident-Arrest of the accused much
D before the disclosure-One ofthe accused not belonging to the parental
family of the witness-Trial Court acquitting two accused and r--
convicting six accused u/ss 302/J 20B and 307IJ 20B-Death sentence
to four and life imprisonment to two accused-In appeal difference of
opinion between the judges of Division Bench of High Court-After
E reference of the matter to third judge, conviction unders 302134 and
sentence for life imprisonment-Appeal ofaccused as well as State-
Held: One of the accused who did not belong to the accused family
acquitted, as in the facts ofthe case his participation is doubtful-Rest
of the accused liable to be convicted-Evidence of the eye-witness is 'r ,.,.
F trustworthy-Delay in disclosure of the names of the accused by her
is justified in view ofher relationship with the accused and her mental
condition-Common intention on the part ofthe accused is proved-
In view of the facts of the case the case falls in the category ofrarest
ofrare cases-However, in the peculiar circumstances ofthe case, life
G sentence is not reversed-Sentencing. J....

The accused persons in the present appeal were prosecuted for
murder of four persons (deceased) and for attempt to murder PW-
1. Prosecution case was that PW-1 was the daughter of accused Nos.

H 752
MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGHSARDARv. STATE 753

1and8. She entered into secret marriage with one of the deceased. A
When she disclosed the same to her parents, it was not accepted as
the deceased was from a lower caste and financially weak. PW-1 left
her parental house and settled in her husband and in-laws house.
PW-1 was repeatedly threatened by her parents and relatives.
Accused No. 1 (mother) and accused No. 2 (maternal aunt) B
demanded PW-1, the ornaments which she was wearing when she
left the house. On the day of the incident, PW-1 was informed that
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had come to visit her. They were invited to
her room on first floor. There PW-1 handed over all the ornaments.
She was told that her maternal uncle (accused No. 3) had also come c
to see her. In the meantime when husband of PW.1 (deceased) went
to balcony for some work, he saw some persons with weapons
hanging around suspiciously. Apprehending danger, he asked his
brother (deceased) to call his friends. When his brother went out,
soon thereafter returned with a patch of blood. PW. 1 saw accused D
Nos. 3,4,5,6, 7 and 8 climbing the stairs armed with weapons. When
from balcony, she shouted for help, somebody pushed her down and
she fell on the ground floor. Sh.e went crawling to a neighbour, who
informed the police. On the site, police found that husband, father-
in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of PW 1 were killed. FIR E
was registered.

Trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 7 and 8. Rest of the accused
were convicted u/ss. 302, 307 r/w s.120B IPC. Accused Nos.1 and
2 were sentenced to life imprisonment and accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and
6 were sentenced to death. F

In High court accused filed appeals and trial Judge made death
reference. There was difference of opinion between the two judges
of the Division Bench, regarding death sentence and conviction of
accused No. 5. Matter was referred to third judge, who ordered
~- acquittal of the accused u/s 302/120B, 307/120B and 307/34 IPC and G
directing their conviction u/s 302/34. They were sentenced to life
imprisonment. Hence the two appeals, one by the accused against
conviction, another by the State, praying for death sentence.

H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A Accused persons contended that PW-1 the solitary eye-witness
cannot be said to have seen the incident as she did not disclose the
names of the accused till the 8th day from the date of the incident;
that arrest of accused long before revelation of the same by PW 1
was suspicious; that in the facts of the case, common intention on
B the part of the accused did not exist; and that involvement of accused
No. 5 was doubtful; that involvement of accused No. 3 was also
suspect.
;._-
State contended that the accused were liable to be convicted;
and that death penalty ought to be reimposed on the four accused.
c
Partly allowing the appeals of the accused and dismissing that
of the State, the Court
HELD: 1.1. PWl held no rancour or ill-will against her family
and the manner in which murders had been engineered must have
D come as the rudest of shocks to her. In the Circumstances of the
case Sessions Judge as also the High Court have categorically found
that she was both unwilling and unable to give her statement and it
was only after she had recovered from her trauma and had also been
provided with security by the police, that she had finally mustered
E courage and then spoken out. [Para 7] [763-C, F]
1.2. There is no suspicious circumstance in the arrest of the
accused long before the date when PWl had revealed the names of
the accused for the reason that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who have
F admitted their presence and had also been seen by several witnesses,
had been arrested before the disclosure of the names, itself and it
was possible on their interrogation that the other accused bad been
arrested subsequently. From the record it is also found that no
question had been put to the Investigating Officer in this regard, as
it is possible that if he had been questioned, he would have given a
G cogent explanation. [Para 8] [763-G, H; 764-A]
1.3. It cannot be said that if the names of the assailants were
not revealed by a witness to the police at the earliest in point of time
amounted to unnatural conduct and no credence could be attached
H
MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGH SARDAR v. STATE 755

}- to the testimony of such a witness. In the present case PWl is a A
stamped witness with grievous injuries caused in the same incident
and as the assailants were her parental family and the victims, her
husband, in laws and brother-in-law, her reluctance and inability to
immediately come forth and to give a statement implicating them is
not surprising. Her mental condition at that time was truly disturbed. B
The fact that she had named the accused for the first time after eight
days of the incident therefore is not surprising and is, on the contrary,
in line with the prosecution story. [Para 9] [764-B, D, E]
Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi), [1975] 3 SCC 562 andAlil Mollah C
andAnr. v. State ofWB. (1996] 5 SCC 369, distinguished.
1.4. It cannot be said that the common intention on the part of
the accused did not exist in the facts of the case as Accused Nos.1
and 2 having left the place prior to the actual attack, points that they
had come merely to persuade PWl . It has been admitted by both D
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
that they had been present in the house for the purpose ofrecovcring
the ornaments and clothes from PWl but they had left soon after
having received them. In view of the evidence of PWsl and 4, it is
apparent that the attack on the family had been pre-planned and duly E
executed with the clear common intention of all the accused to set
things right in their perverted way of thinking, but only after the
jewellery had been recovered. It is also clear that a murderous attack
had been made on PWl as well which was a culmination of the entire
process of threat and intimidation that she had suffered atthe hands F
of her family. There are no extenuating circumstances in favour of
Accused Nos. 1and2. [Para 10] [764-F, G; 765-D, E]
1.5. It cannot be said that the involvement of Accused No.3 was
also suspect as his identity card which was said to be a corroborative
,.). circumstance had apparently been planted by the investigators. In G
his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P .C. he had asserted that
the identity card in question was an old one and that a new card had
been subsequently issued to him. The courts below have rightly held
that his case that the old identity card had been surrendered at the
H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A time when the new one had been issued was not acceptable as the -(
defence witnesses had nowhere stated that the old card had been
taken back on the issuance of a new one although, the normal custom
in the office was that this exercise had been carried out. The courts
have thus observed that there was no conclusive evidence placed
B by the defence that the old card had indeed been returned to the
employers. Moreover, in the light of the statement of PWl, his
participation is also established beyond doubt.
[Para 13) [766-C, D, E, F]
1.6. There is some doubt as to participation of Accused No. 5.
C Evidence of PW 1 with regard to his relationship with her family
appears to be somewhat uncertain. She also admitted that his
photograph had been shown to her before TI Parade. She had been
called to identify him in the parade thereafter though she had not
known his name at that point of time. Even the Panchnama with
D respect to the proceedings of the identification parade is not on
record and the Executive Magistrate who conducted the parade has
not been produced as a witness. Therefore, he is liable to be
acquitted. [Paras 12 and 21) [766-A, B; 771-G]

E 2.1. The efficacy or otherwise of the death penalty is a matter
of much debate in legal circles - with two diametrically opposite
views on the subject. However, as the penal code visualizes the
imposition of this penalty, the circumstances under which it should
be imposed are also a matter of discussion, the broad principle being
F its award in the rarest of rare cases. Undoubtedly also while
categorizing a case the facts would predominate but the predilection
of a Judge, is a human factor (and a factor whose importance cannot
be minimized) but as Judges applying the law one must also be alive
to the needs of society and the damage which can result if a ghastly
G crime is not dealt with in an effective and proper manner. While
Judges tend to be extremely harsh in dealing with murders
committed on account ofreligious factors they tend to become more
conservative and almost apologetic in the case of murders arising
out of caste on the premise (as in this very case) that society should
H be given time so that the necessary change comes about in the
;

_i MAY AKAURBALDEVSINGHSARDAR v. STATE 757

normal course. Has this hands off approach led to the creation of A
the casteless utopia or even, a perceptible movement in that
direction? The answer is an emphatic no as would be clear from
mushrooming caste based organizations controlled and manipulated
by self appointed Commissars who have arrogated to themselves
the right to be the sole arbiters and defenders of their castes with B
the license to kill and maim to enforce their diktats and bring in line
those who dare to deviate. Resultantly the idyllic situation that is
perceived is as distant as ever. In this background is it appropriate
to throw up hands in despair waiting ad infinitum or optimistically a
millennium or two for the day when good sense would prevail by a c
normal evolutionary process or to help out by a push and a prod
through the criminal justice system? There can be only one answer
to this question. [Para 16] [767-B, C, D, E, F, G]
2.2. Strictly speaking the present case would fall within the
parameters visualized in Bachan Singh 's and Machhi Singh 's cases. D
- -y The diabolical nature of the crime and the murder of helpless
individuals committed with traditional weapons with extreme cruelty
and pre-meditation is exacerbated by the fact that Accused Nos. 1
and 2 had come upstairs and recovered the jewellery and clothes
from just before the actual murders. [Para 20] [771-D, E] E
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 180 2 SCC 684 and Machhi
Singh vs. State of Punjab, [1983] 3 SCC 470, relied on.
.. " 2.3. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case
the Court is not inclined to reverse the life sentences awarded by F
the High Court and to re-impose the death penalty on the accused.
[Para21] [771-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
1364-1366 of 2004.
G
From the Common Judgment and Final Orders dated 26.2.2003,
25.4.20.03 and 25.7.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Criminal Appeal No. 54/2002.

H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] IO S.C.R. -
\
A WITH
--'..
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1378-1380 and 1419-1421/2004.
Vijay S: Kotwal, S.V. Kotwal, Sachindra B. Shetye, S.M. Jadhav,
Rahul Joshi, Brijkishore Sah, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Sush.il Karanjkar and
B Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. These appeals by special leave arise A.·
out of the following facts.
c 2. Rajvinder Kaur (PWI) was the youngest daughter of Maya Kaur
and Baldev Singh Sardar. In addition to Rajvinder Kaur the couple had
another daughter Sulakshana, and two sons Ranprit Singh and Amrit Singh
and the entire family was residing in a small township near Panvel City
on the outskirts of Mumbai. While studying in school Rajvinder Kaur fell
D in love with Ravinder Singh and the relationship culminated in a secret
marriage between the two, as Rajvinder's family did not approve of the
't--
relationship on the premise that Ravinder Singh belonged to an inferior
caste and was also financially weak. It appears that after Sulakshana's
marriage, Baldev Singh and Maya Kaur decided that it was appropriate
E that Rajvinder Kaur too should be married off. A suitable boy was
accordingly selected by them for her but before a final decision could be
taken Rajvinder Kaur told the proposed bridegroom of her love affair
with Ravinder Singh. He nevertheless still agreed to the marriage. Faced
with this difficult situation, Rajvinder Kaur informed her parents that she
F was already married with Ravinder Singh. This information caused
r.
consternation in her family and faced with hostility she left home and shifted
in with her husband and his family. She was, however, repeatedly
threatened by her relatives including her parents that she would have to
suffer the consequences of her misconduct. Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur,
G Rajvinder's maternal aunt, also demanded the return of the ornaments that
she had been wearing when she had left her parents home, but she told l-..:-

them that they could collect these articles from the police station ( in the
presence of the police) as she had already lodged a complaint. On 3.0th
May 1999 at about 8.30 p.m. Rajvinder Kaur was informed that her
H mother and maternal aunt had come to visit her. She accordingly invited
I
y
J

MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGH SARDAR v. STATE 759
[H.S.BEDI,J.]
them upstairs to the first floor and on their demand handed over the A
ornaments to her mother. Maya Kaur and NirmalKaur also told Rajvinder
Kaur that her maternal uncle (Mama) Bhagwan Singh (accused No.3)
had also come to visit her and was waiting downstairs. Lakhmindar Kaur,
Rajvinder's mother-in-law told Maya Kaur to call her brother upstairs.
In the meantime, it appears Ravinder Singh went out on to the balcony B
to get his shirt and saw some persons armed with weapons in their hands
hanging around suspiciously and apprehending mischief, he asked his
brother Harvindar Singh to immediately call some of his friends. Harvindar
Singh rushed downstairs in an attempt to do so but soon returned with a
patch of blood on his shirt on the abdomen and fell in the prayer room. c
Rajvinder Kaur then saw accused No.4 Jagpal Singh, husband ofNirmal
Kaur, accused No.5 Kawaljit Singh, cousin of Maya Kaur and Ninnal
Kaur accused No.6 Bakhtavar Singh, maternal uncle of Maya Kaur,
accused No.7 Kuldip Singh, a close relative of Maya Kaur, Baldev Singh
and Bhagwan Singh climbing the stair case with weapons in their hands. D
- ··~·
Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur however left the place and went out of the
gate. Rajvinder, sensing danger shouted for help but somebody entered
the balcony and pushed her therefrom and she fell on the ground floor
sustaining severe injuries. She also heard some voices speaking in Punjabi
suggesting that she be killed and somebody replying that she was already E
dead. Rajvinder Kaur, grievously hurt, went crawling to the house of one
Narula, a neighbour, and informed him of the assault on her family on
which he called the police. The Police reached the site after a short time
and found that Ravinder Singh, husband of Rajvinder Kaur, her brother-
in-law Harvindar Singh, and her-in-laws Dilip Singh and Lakhwinder Kaur p
had all been killed. A formal FIR was thereupon registered at about 3.30
a.m. on 1st June 1999 at the Police Station, five kilometers distant, at
the instance of PW7 Sub-Inspector Vikram Bhimrao Patil. On the
completion of the investigation, the accused were charged as under:-
G

H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A S.No. Accused Name Charged Under Act &
Clause
1. Mayakaur Sardar l.P.C Sections
302,307,120(B),34;
Arms Act- Sections
B 25(1 )&(3),27(3)
')
"'-· Nirmalkaur Sardar - DO -
3. Bhagwansingh Randhava - DO -
4. Jagpalsingh Toor - DO -
c 5. Kunwarjitsingh Pullar@
Rana Randhava - DO -
6. Bakhtawarsingh Randhava - DO -
7. Kuldeepsingh Randhava l.P.C Sections
302,307, 120(B),34
D 8. Baldevsingh Sardar l.P.C Sections
302,307' 120(B),34;
Arms Act- Sections
25(1 )&(3),27(3)

E 3. After an elaborate discussion the trial court sentenced Bhagwan
Singh, Jagpal Singh, Kanwarjit Singh, Bakhtawar Singh, Maya Kaur and
Nirmal Kaur guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 307 read with
Section 120 B of the IPC and sentenced the first four to death and the
other two to life imprisonment under Sections 302/120B and to lesser
F term of imprisonment for the other offences. Kuldip Singh and Baldev
Singh were however acquitted.
4. As four of the accused had been awarded the death penalty, the
trial Judge made a reference to the High Court under Section 366 of the
Cr.P.C. The accused also filed appeals challenging their convictions and
G the matters were heard by a Division Bench of S.S. Parkar and J.N. Patil,
JJ. Parkar, J. was of the opinion that a death sentence in the circumstances
was not justified and that the involvement ofKawaljit Singh too had not
been proved. He accordingly opined that the death sentence should not
be confirmed and that Kawaljit Singh was liable to an acquittal. Patil,J.
H
I

~j
MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGHSARDAR v. STATE 761
[H.S. BEDI, J.]
) was, however, of the opinion that the death sentence 'imposed by the trial A
court and the conviction of Kawaljit Singh were justified on the facts and
the evidence. On account of a. difference of opinion on these matters
amongst two Hon'ble Judges, the matter was referred to a third Judge
Palshikar,J. under Section 392 of the Cr.P.C. On a re-appreciation of the
evidence Palshikar,J. ordered the acquittal of the accused under Sections B
302/120B and 307/120B and 307/34 of the IPC and directed that
Mayakaur Sardar, Nirmal Kaur Sardar,Bhagwan Singh Randhava, Jagpal
Singh Toor, Kanwarjit Singh Pullar@ Rana Randhava and Bakhtawar
Singh Randhava undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of
the IPC. The murder reference was accordingly declined. c
5. The matter was thereafter placed before the Division Bench of
Parkar and Patil, JJ. and appropriate orders were passed. It is in these
circumstances that two sets of appeals have been filed before us, one by
the accused appellants challenging their conviction and sentence and the
other by the State of Maharashtra praying for the award of the death D
sentence to the accused.
6. Mr. Vijay Kotwal, the learned senior counsel for the accused-
appellants has first and foremost argued that the incident had happened
in the evening of 30th May 1999 but Rajvinder Kaur(PWl ), the solitary E
eye witness, had not disclosed the names of the accused to the police till
the 8th of June 1999 which clearly revealed that she had not seen the
incident and that she had been forced to become an eye witness to the
murders. It has also been pleaded that in the case of a single witness it
was essential that the testimony should be without blemish and as she had F
made significant improvements and changes in her statements from those
made to the police from time to time, no reliance could be placed on her
testimony and as such could not by itself form the basis of a conviction.
It has been emphasized that there was no evidence to show as to the
reasons that had prompted the police to arrest the accused well before G
8th of June, 1999 in the absence of any evidence against them. It has
also been pleaded that the recovery of the identity card of accused No.3
(Bhagwan Singh ) from near the dead body and the recovery of the various
articles at the instance of the accused on their statements under Section
27 of the Evidence Act clearly revealed that the investigation made by H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A the police was an unfair and biased one and finally that there was no
evidence as to the involvement of Kawaljit Singh. The Government
Advocate has however pointed out that the two ladies Maya Kaur and
Nirmal Kaur had admitted their presence at the place of incident and PW4
Yogeshkrishan Lohar who was a neighbour of the deceased family too
B had deposed that on the night of the incident he had heard the sound of
an auto rickshaw and on looking out had seen two women and two or
three Sardars getting down therefrom which clearly showed that all the
accused had come together. It has also been highlighted that Rajvinder
Kaur had been completely traumatized by the incident, the assailants being
c her parents family and the victims being her in-laws, her husband and
brother-in-law and in this view of the matter, it was not surprising that
she had not been able to give out the names of the accused till the 8th of
June 1999, and that in this situation some discrepancies in her depositions
were to be expected. It has been submitted that there was no inflexible
D rule of law that the non-disclosure of the names of the accused at the
very initial stage must a fortiori result in an acquittal of the accused. It
has also been argued that the recovery of the various articles clearly
incriminated the accused-appellants and no interference was called for on
findings of fact arrived at by two courts. It has finally been pleaded that
E the death penalty ought to be re-imposed on the four accused as per the
judgment of the Sessions Judge.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record very carefully. Several facts are admitted by both sides.
The relationship inter-se the parties stands admitted. It is also in evidence
F that Rajvinder Kaur had secretly married Ravinder Singh and it was only
when an attempt had been made to marry her off to some other person
that she had been forced to reveal her marriage and that this information
had caused great alarm in her family and invited their wrath and that several
threats had also been held out to her prior to the murders following which
G she had made a complaint to the police. It has also come in Rajvinder's
deposition that she had initially been hesitant to disclose the names of the
assailants as she was mortally scared by what had happened to her
husband's family and an attempt made on her life as well. It is in this
background that her statement needs to be evaluated. The evidence of
H Dr. Alexander Martin Alphonse (PW13), a Psychiatrist attached to the
.!
MA YAKAURBALDEVSINGHSARDAR v. STATE 763
[H.S.BEDl,J.]
}
MGM Hospital, Bombay also shows that Rajvinder had been examined A
by Doctor Yamini at about 1.00 a.m. on 31st May 1999 and that he had
examined her after she had been referred to him by the Orthopaedic
Surgeon Dr. Rajesh Kakvani and that she was in a state of tremendous
shock and out of a normal state of mind, sad and tearfu1 and
uncommunicative and that she had refused to take any food and B
comph4ined of lack of sleep on account of immense grief and suffering as
> a result of traumatic stress disorder. He further deposed that she had been
in that condition for four or five days and had finally been discharged from
hospital on the 29th June 1999. It is in these circumstances that the
Sessions Judge as also the High Court have categorically found that she c
was both unwilling and unable to give her statement and it was only after
she had recovered from her trauma and had also been provided with
security by the police, that she had finally mustered courage and then
spoken out. It is also evident from the record that Maya Kaur and Nirmal
Kaur had made repeated efforts to get back the ornaments that Rajvinder D
~ ~+ Kaur had taken with her after she had shifted in with her husband and
that she had, without hesitation, handed over the ornaments to them. It
has also come in her statement that some efforts had been made (though
with extreme reluctance on the part of her parents family) to normalize
the relationship by having another marriage between her and Ravinder
E
Singh in a Gurudwara but it appears that her parents, particularly her father,
remained unrelenting with what they believed to be a marriage with a
person who was financially weak and belonged to an inferior caste.
.. '"( Rajvinder thus held no rancour or ill-will against her family and the manner
in which murders had been engineered must have come as the rudest of
F
shocks to her.
8. A serious argument has been raised as to the events which had
led to the arrest of the accused long before the 8th of June 1999 and on
the basis on which the arrests had been made. We find no suspicious
-..L
circumstance in the arrests for the reason that Maya Kaur and Nirmal G
I<..aur who have admitted their presence and had also been seen by several
witnesses, had been arrested on 31st of May 1999 itself and it was
possibly on their interrogation that the other accused had been arrested
subsequently. We also find from the record that no question had been
put to the Investigating Officer in this regard, as it is possible that if he H
.x.
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A had been questioned, he would have given a cogent explanation.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants has, however, relied on
the judgment ofthis Court inJagir Singh v. The State (Delhi), [1975] 3
sec 562 andAlil Mollah & Anr. V. State ofWB., [1996] 5 sec 369
B to contend that if the names of the assailants were not revealed by a
witness to the police at the earliest in point of time amounted to unnatural
conduct and no credence could be attached to the testimony of'such a
witness. We have perused the cited judgments and find their facts to be
distinct and not applicable to the present case. In Jagir Singh 's case
(supra) the Court found that the eye witnesses had not been able to giv.e
C any explanation for the injuries that had been found on the body of the
deceased, which precluded their presence. Likewise inAlil Mollah 's case
(supra) the Court observed that the conduct of the solitary eye witness
was so unnatural that it did not inspire any confidence. In the case before
us, we find that Rajvinder Kaur is a stamped witness with grievous injuries
D caused in the same incident and as the assailants were her parental family
and the victims, her husband, in laws and brother-in-law, her reluctance
and inability to immediately come forth and to give a statement implicating
them is not surprising. We also observe that her mental condition at that
time was truly disturbed as made out from the evidence of Dr. Alexander
E that she had been completely unstable for a period of 5 or 6 days after
the incident. The fact that she had named the accused for the first time
on the 8th of June therefore does not surprise us and is, on the contrary,
in line with the prosecution story.
F 10. It has then been argued by Mr. Kotwal that the common intention
on the part of the accused did not exist in the facts of the case as it was
possible that Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur had come to Rajvinder Kaur's
home merely to persuade her to return the jewellery that she had taken
with her and that they,. having left the place prior to the actual attack, was
G a pointer in that direction. We find absolutely no merit in this argument. It
has been admitted by both Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur in their statements
under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that they had been present in the house
for the purpose of recovering the ornaments and clothes from Rajvinder
but they had left soon after having received them. It has however come
in the evidence of PW4 Yogesh Krishan Lohar, a neighbour, that just
H
l
MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGHSARDAR v. STATE 765
[H.S. BEDI,J.]
before the incident he had looked out from the window on hearing the A
sound of an Auto Rickshaw and had seen two women and two or three
Sardars alighting therefrom. It has also come in Rajvinder' s statement that
when her mother and aunt had arrived at her in-laws place and walked
upstairs they had refused to take even the glass of water which had been
offered to them and that Nirmal Kaur had told her that her (Nirmal Kaur' s) B
brother had come with her and wanted to meet Rajvinder and on which
Maya Kaur had gone down to call him upstairs. It is also in evidence
that when Ravinder Singh had gone out on to the balcony to put on a
shirt he had rushed back in alarm saying that many persons had come
with weapons and had accordingly told his brother Harvinder to call his c
friends. It appears that when Harvinder had gone downstairs he had been
caused a grievous injury by the accused which had prompted him to return
upstairs bleeding profusely where he had fallen down. It is thus apparent
that the attack on the family had been pre-planned and duly executed with
the clear common intention of all the accused to set things right in their D
perverted way of thinking, but only after the jewellery had been recovered.
It is also clear that a murderous attack had been made on Rajvinder Kaur
as well which was a culmination of the entire process of threat and
intimidation that she had suffered at the hands of her family. We are
therefore of the opinion that there are no extenuating circumstances in E
favour of Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur.
11. It has been pleaded by Mr. Kotwal that accused No.5 Kawaljit
Singh was apparently not a member of the Rajvinder Kaur's parental
family as he was a servant employed in Nasik in the Dhaba of accused
Bakhtawar Singh and that as Rajvinder Kaur's statement with regard to F
his identity and presence was also ambivalent his involvement was in doubt.
It has also been argued that the identification parade with respect to
Kawaljit Singh had been held after his photograph has been shown to
Rajvinder Kaur. It has however been pointed out by the learned State
counsel that the Rajvinder Kaur had admitted that she had not known G
Kawaljit Singh's actual name and that he was known to her as Rana but
she was categorical in that he had been one of the assailants and that she
had identified him on two occasions in the police station some time after
the incident.
H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] IO S.C.R.

A 12. We have considered this argument as well. We find some doubt .\
as to Kawaljit Singh's participation. Rajvinder Kaur's evidence with
regard to his relationship with her family appears to be somewhat uncertain.
She also admitted that his photograph had been shown to her on the 29th
June 1999 and that she had been called to identify him in the parade
B thereafter though she had not known his name at that point of time. Our
opinion is further fortified by the fact that even the Panchnama with respect
to the proceedings of the identification parade is not on record and the
Executive Magistrate who conducted the parade has not been produced
as a witness.
c 13. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that the
involvement of Bhagwan Singh was also suspect as his identity card which
was said to be a corroborative circumstance had apparently been planted
by the investigators. We find no basis for this assertion. In his statement
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Bhagwan Singh had asserted that the
D identity card in question was an old one and that a new card had been
subsequently issued to him. We find that the courts below have rightly
held that his case that the old identity card had been surrendered at the
time when the new one had been issued was not acceptable as the defence
witnesses had nowhere stated that the old card had been taken back on
E the issuance of a new one although, the normal custom in the office was
that this exercise had been carried out. The courts have thus observed
that there was no conclusive evidence placed by the defence that the old
card had indeed been returned to the employers. Moreover, in the light
of the statement ofRajvinder Kaur, Bhagwan Singh's participation is also
F established beyond doubt.
14. We now come to the State appeal seeking a sentence of death
for four of the assailants.
15. The learned Government counsel has argued that the present
G case fell within the category of rarest of rare cases Bachan Singh v. State
ofPunjab, [1980] 2 SCC 684 and as such the trial court was fully justified
in having recorded a death sentence with respect to four of the accused.
It has also been pointed out that the proceedings for confirmation of the
death sentence before the High Court, had led to a difference between
H the two Judges, with one for confirmation and the other for the imposition
MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGHSARDARv. STATE 767
[H.S. BEDI, J.]
,>-- of a life sentence and it was in this circumstance that the matter had been A
referred to a third Hon'ble Judge who too hinted that the death sentence
was not called for as it would not serve society at large as the murders
had been committed on account of social pressures and in vindication of
the family honour, though the family honour could not be said to be a
justification for the murders. B

16. We have something to say on this aspect. The efficacy or
otherwise of the death penalty is a matter of much debate in legal circles
-with two diametrically opposite views on the subject. However, as the
penal code visualizes the imposition of this penalty, the circumstances under
which it should be imposed are also a matter of discussion, the broad C
principle being its award in the rarest of rare cases. Undoubtedly also
while categorizing a case the facts would predominate but the predilection
of a Judge, is a human factor (and a factor whose importance cannot be
minimized) but as Judges applying the law we must also be alive to the
needs of society and the damage which can result if a ghastly crime is not D
• ~ dealt with in an effective and proper manner. We also notice that while
Judges tend to be extremely harsh in dealing with murders committed on
account of religious factors they tend to become more conservative and
almost apologetic in the case of murders arising out of caste on the premise
(as in this very case) that society should be given time so that the necessary E
change comes about in the normal course. Has this hands off approach
led to the creation of the casteless utopia or even a-perceptible movement
in that direction? The answer is an emphatic no as would be clear from
"' ~ mushrooming caste based organizations controlled and manipulated by self
appointed Commissars who have arrogated to themselves the right to be F
the sole arbiters and defenders of their castes with the license to kill and
maim to enforce their diktats and bring in line those who dare to deviate.
Resultantly the idyllic situation that we perceive is as distant as ever. In
this background is it appropriate that we throw up our hands in despair
- ._ waiting ad infinitum or optimistically a millennium or two for the day G
when good sense would prevail by a normal evolutionary process or is it
our duty to help out by a push and a prod through the criminal justice
system? We feel that there can be only one answer to this question.
17. The present case is a classic example of what we mean. Both
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A parties are Sikhs, a religion which had its genesis in a revolt against casteism ,.(.
with the belief that there was only one caste - humanity - imbued with
one spirit, humanism and thus promoted the brotherhood of men with the
ethos that no one was good or bad as all had emanated from the same
''Noor" (light). And the ironic realism; the accused are Jat Sikh.;; -a proud
B and aggressive community which has produced some oflndia's most
valorous soldiers and helped fill India's granaries - unwilling to accept the
victims as equals - they being Matharu Ramgariah Sikhs, artisans by
profession - and in their garbled perception inferior in every way and --4.
unsuitable for their daughter. It has come in Rajvinder's statement that
c she had been the favourite child of her parents but the events show that
notwithstanding this deep filial attachment they were of the opinion that
she was better dead than alive.
18. The two cases which have really crystalliz.ed the situation in which
the death penalty ought to be awarded are Bachan Singh (supra) and
D Machhi Singh V. State of Punjab, [1983] 3 sec 470. In Bachan
Singh's case the Court observed that the extreme penalty could be t-~.
inflicted only in cases of gravest and extreme culpability. The Court also
held that the mitigating circumstances in favour of a criminal so as to avoid
death penalty had also to be taken into accou.tJt and the balance-sheet of
E the aggravating and mitigating circumstances was to be prepared as a
prelude to the award of the sentence. The broad principles laid down in
Bachan Singh 's case were adopted in Machhi Singh 's case with the
following prefatory observations:
"The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse
F
the humanistic approach reflected in 'death sentence-in-no-case'
doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place, the very humanistic
edifice is constructed on the foundation of 'reverence for life'
principle. When a member of the community violates this very
principle by killing another member, the society may not feel itself
G
bound by the shackles of this doctrine. Secondly, it has to be
realized that every member of the community is able to live with
safety without his or her own life being endangered because of the
protective arm of the community and on account of the rule oflaw
enforced by it. The very existence of the rule of law and the fear
H
MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGH SARDAR v. STATE 769
[H.S. BEDI, J.]
of being brought to book operates as a deterrent of those who A
have no scruples in killing others if its suits their ends. Every
member of the community owes a debt to the community for this
protection. When ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by
'killing' a member of the community which protects the murderer
himself from being killed, or when the community feels that for the B
sake of self-preservation the killer has to be killed , the community
may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty.
But the community will not do so in every case. It may do so 'in
rarest of rare cases' when its collective conscience is so shocked
that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict c
death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards
desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty. The community
may entertain such a sentiment when the crime is viewed from the
platform of the motive for, or the manner of commission of the
crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime". D
19. The Court further observed that if a murder was committed in
circumstances which aroused societal wrath or when the crime was
enormous in proportion such as in a case of multiple murders of all or
almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a
particular caste, community or locality or pre-meditated, pre-planned and E
diabolically executed and the helpless state of the victims were aggravating
circumstances. The horrendous manner of the execution of the murders
is best expressed in the words of PW-14 Dr. Dhananjay Bapurao Shinde:
"I was attached to Medical Municipal Dispensary, at Panvel, F
as Medical Officer since 16th January 1999. On 31.5.1999 four
dead bodies were brought to my dispensary, they were referred
to me by City Panvel Police Station. I have examined the dead
bodies.
2. On examination of dead body of Dilip Singh I found G
eleven injuries on his person. They were incised injuries. They
are mentioned by me in the column No.17 of the P.M. Notes. The
internal injuries found by me are mentioned in column Nps.19 and
20 in P.M. Notes. I have mentioned in column No.23 the injuries
which were sufficient in the ordinary nature of course of cause of H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A death. Even taking into consideration the single injury also. Each
injury by itself mentioned in column No.23 by itself was
sufficient in the ordinary nature of course of cause the death.
The injuries were ante-mortem. In my opinion the cause of death
was cardio respiratory failure due to haemorrhagic(sic) shock
B because of multiple injuries over the body. The P.M. are written
and signed by me and its contents are true and correct, it is at
exhibit 111.
3. On the same day I examined the dead body ofLakhavindar
Kaur and found that she had sustained four incised injuries,
c which are mentioned by me in column No.17 ofthe P.MNotes.
Her _neck was found completely out(sic). Only some muscle
were found attached to the skull. I have mentioned the internal
injuries in column Nos.19 and 20 of the notes. In my opinion the
cause of death was due to incised wound which has practically
·D out of her neck completely. The injuries were ante-mortem and
could have been caused by the sharp edged instrument the cause
of death was cardio respiratory failure due to hemorrhegic(sic)
shock, due to multiple. The P.M. Notes are in my handwriting, it
is signed by me and its contents are true and correct, exhibit 112.
E
4. On the same day I have also examined the dead body of
Ravindra Singh. There were 10 minutes (sic)(Incised) found on
his body. Besides two were abrasions. Mainly these injuries were
on the body. I have mentioned these injuries in column No.17. The
internal injuries mentioned by me in coltunn Nos.19 and 20.1found
F
on the backside that 5th, 6th and 7th ribs fractured on the
backside. I also found an incised wound on his neck and his
laJynx out(sic). The injuries were ante mortem and could have
been caused by sharp edged instrument and also by blunt
instrument. The cause of death was due to cardio respiratory
G
failure, due to haemorrhaegic(sic) shock due to multiple injuries
accused. The P.M. Notes are in my handwriting and its contents
are true and correct. It is exhibit 113.
5. I have also exmined the dead body of Harvindar Singh and
H found nine incised wound on his body, which I have mentioned
I MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGHSARDAR v. STATE 771
[H.S.BEDI,J.]
A
in the column No.17 in the P.M.Notes. !found occipital, parietal
and frontal bones of the skull fractured and the brain matter
had come out. I have also found fracture of 6th and 7th ribs
of right side. The injuries could have been caused by sharp
edged heavy weapons such as sword (sic) etc. The cause of B
death was due to cardio respiratory failure, due to multiple injuries
caused on the body. The P.M. Notes are in my hand-writing and
it (sic) were signed by me and its contents are true and correct. It
is at Exhibit 114. The injuries were anti-mortem (sic). Both the
hands were found completely cut offrom the shoulders. The
injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the C
death. Both the hands were separated.from the body."
N.B. The above statement has been reproduced verbatim.
20. We are of the opinion that strictly speaking the present case
would fall within the parameters visualized in Bachan Singh 's and Machhi D
Singh 's cases. The diabolical nature ofthe crime and the murder ofhelpless
individuals committed with traditional weapons with extreme cruelty and
pre-meditation is exacerbated by the fact that Maya Kaur and Nirmal
Kaur had come upstairs and recovered the jewellery and clothes from
Rajvinder Kaur just before the actual murders. E
21. Having said all this, we are of the opinion that in the peculiar
circumstances that we now face we are not inclined to reverse the life
sentences awarded by the High Court and to re-impose the death penalty
on the accused. We note that the Additional Sessions Judge had rendered p
his judgment on 21st December 2001 awarding the death sentence to
four of the accused. The Division Bench of Parkar and Patil, JJ. gave its
divergent judgments on February 26, 2003. The third Hon'ble Judge
Palshikar,J. delivered his judgment on April 25, 2003 and the matter has
been taken up by us four years thereafter. It has also come on record G
->
that the accused have served more than 8 years of their sentences as of
now. We accordingly allow Criminal Appeal Nos. 1378-1380/2004 in
so far as they relate to Kawaljit Singh alias Rana Darshan Singh Puller
and order his acquittal. All other appeals are however dismissed.
K.K.T. Appeals allowed. H