http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1364-66 of 2004

PETITIONER: Mayakaur Baldevsingh Sardar & Anr

RESPONDENT: The State of Maharashtra

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/10/2007

BENCH: S.B.SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T WITH CRL.A.Nso.1378-1380/2004  and 1419-1421/2004

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1.      These appeals by special leave arise out of the  following facts. 2.      Rajvinder Kaur (PW1) 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 in love with  Ravinder Singh and the relationship culminated in a secret  marriage between the two, as Rajvinder\022s family did not approve  of the relationship on the premise that Ravinder Singh belonged  to an inferior caste and was also financially weak.  It appears  that after Sulakshana\022s marriage, Baldev Singh and Maya Kaur  decided that it was appropriate 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 was already married with Ravinder Singh.  This  information caused 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,  Rajvinder\022s maternal aunt, also demanded the return of the  ornaments that she had been wearing when she had left her  parents home, but she told 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 30th May 1999  at about 8.30 p.m. Rajvinder Kaur was informed that her mother  and maternal aunt had come to visit her.  She accordingly  invited them upstairs to the first floor and on their demand  handed over the ornaments to her mother.  Maya Kaur and Nirmal  Kaur 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\022s mother-in-law  told Maya Kaur to call her brother upstairs.  In the meantime,  it appears Ravinder Singh went out on to the balcony 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

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.  Rajvinder Kaur then saw  accused No.4 Jagpal Singh, husband of Nirmal Kaur, accused No.5  Kawaljit Singh, cousin of Maya Kaur and Nirmal 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.  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 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 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:-

S.No. Accused Name Charged Under Act &  Clause 1. Mayakaur Sardar I.P.C Sections  302,307,120(B),34;          Arms Act- Sections  25(1)&(3),27(3) 2. Nirmalkaur Sardar      - DO - 3. Bhagwansingh Randhava      - DO - 4. Jagpalsingh Toor      - DO - 5. Kunwarjitsingh Pullar  @ Rana Randhava      - DO - 6. Bakhtawarsingh  Randhava      - DO - 7. Kuldeepsingh Randhava I.P.C Sections  302,307,120(B),34 8. Baldevsingh Sardar I.P.C Sections  302,307,120(B),34;           Arms Act- Sections  25(1)&(3),27(3)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

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 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 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 of Kawaljit 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. was, however,  of the opinion   that the death sentence imposed by the trial 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\022ble 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 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.  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 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(PW1), the solitary 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 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  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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

family too 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 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 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 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 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 she had made a complaint to the police.   It has also come in Rajvinder\022s 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\022s  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 Dr. Alexander Martin Alphonse (PW13), a Psychiatrist  attached to the MGM Hospital, Bombay also shows that Rajvinder  had been examined 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 tearful and uncommunicative and  that she had refused to take any food and complained 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 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 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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

engineered must have come as the rudest of 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 circumstance in the arrests for the reason  that Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur 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 had been questioned, he would have given a  cogent explanation. 9.      The learned counsel for the appellants has, however, relied  on the judgment of this Court in Jagir Singh vs. The State  (Delhi) (1975) 3 SCC 562 and Alil Mollah & Anr. Vs. State of  W.B. (1996) 5 SCC 369 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\022s case (supra) the Court found that the eye witnesses had  not been able to give any explanation for the injuries that had  been found on the body of the deceased, which precluded their  presence.  Likewise in Alil Mollah\022s 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 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 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. 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\022s 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 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 before the  incident he had looked out from the window on hearing the sound  of an Auto Rickshaw and had seen two women and two or three  Sardars  alighting therefrom. It has also come in Rajvinder\022s  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\022s) 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

call his 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  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 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\022s parental  family as he was a servant employed in Nasik in  the Dhaba of accused Bakhtawar Singh and that as Rajvinder  Kaur\022s statement with regard to 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 Kawaljit Singh\022s 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. 12.    We have considered this argument as well.  We find some  doubt as to Kawaljit Singh\022s participation.  Rajvinder Kaur\022s  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 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.              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 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 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 of Rajvinder Kaur, Bhagwan Singh\022s  participation is also 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  case fell within the category of rarest of rare cases Bachan  Singh v. State of Punjab (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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

the two Judges, with one for  confirmation and the other for the  imposition of a life sentence and it was in this circumstance  that the matter had been referred to a third Hon\022ble 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.   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 \026 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 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 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 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 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 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 parties are Sikhs, a religion which had its genesis in a  revolt against casteism with the belief that there was only one  caste \026 humanity \026 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 \023Noor\024 (light).  And the ironic realism;  the accused are Jat Sikhs \026a proud and  aggressive community which has produced some of India\022s most  valorous soldiers and helped fill India\022s 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 unsuitable for their daughter.  It has  come in Rajvinder\022s statement that 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 crystallized the  situation in which the death penalty ought to be awarded are  Bachan Singh  (supra) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)  3 SCC 470.  In Bachan Singh\022s case the Court observed that the  extreme penalty could be 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

penalty had also to be taken into account and the balance-sheet  of 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\022s case were adopted in  Machhi Singh\022s case  with the following prefatory observations:         \023The reasons why the community  as a whole does not endorse the  humanistic approach reflected in   \021death sentence-in-no-case\022  doctrine are not far to seek.  In  the first place, the very  humanistic edifice is constructed  on the foundation of \021reverence  for life\022 principle.  When a  member of the community violates  this very principle by killing  another member, the society may  not feel itself 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 of law enforced by it.  The  very existence of the rule of law  and the fear of being brought to  book operates as a deterrent of  those who 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 \021killing\022 a  member of the community which  protects the murderer himself  from being killed, or when the  community feels that for the 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 \021in  rarest of rare cases\022 when its  collective conscience is so  shocked that it will expect the  holders of the judicial power  centre to inflict 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\024.                       

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

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 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:    

  \023I was attached to Medical  Municipal Dispensary, at Panvel, 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 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  Nos.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 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  hemorrhegic(sic) shock 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 of Lakhavindar Kaur and  found that she had sustained four  incised injuries, which are  mentioned by me in column No.17 of  the P.M.Notes.  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  out of her neck completely.  The  injuries were ante-mortem and could     have been caused by the sharp edged

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

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.

 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 column Nos.19 and  20.  I found on the backside that  5th,6th and 7th ribs fractured on the  backside.  I also found an incised  wound on his neck and his larynx  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  failure, due to hemorrhegic(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 found  nine incised wound on his body,  which I have mentioned in the column  No.17 in the P.M.Notes.  I 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 sward  (sic) etc.  The cause of 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 of from the  shoulders.  The injuries were  sufficient in ordinary course of  nature to cause the death.  Both the  hands were separated from the body.\024         N.B.  The above statement has been reproduced verbatim.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

20.     We are of the opinion that strictly speaking the present  case would fall within the parameters visualized in  Bachan  Singh\022s and Machhi Singh\022s cases. 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 Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur had come  upstairs and recovered the jewellery and clothes from Rajvinder  Kaur  just  before the actual murders. 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 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\022ble  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 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.