MAYAKAUR BALDEVSINGH SARDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(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's 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's 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'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 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'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 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. 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:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1042_TLPRE0_2007Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) 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.