Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
SARDAR SINGH ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI)
DATE OF JUDGMENT23/02/1993
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
MOHAN, S. (J)
CITATION:
1993 AIR 1696 1993 SCR (2) 65
1993 SCC Supl. (2) 393 JT 1993 (4) 534
1993 SCALE (1)681
ACT:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 3.
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sections 302/34 and 201/34.
Murder-Causing the evidence of the Commission of the offence
to disappear-Conviction based on circumstantial
evidence--Validity of.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant, A-1, his wife, A-2, and his brother’s wife,
A-3, were prosecuted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the
Indian Penal Code. Ile entire case was based on the
circumstantial evidence : (a) the deceased had illicit
relations with A-2 and A-3; (b) the deceased was last seen
on the night when he went to sleep in his house and
thereafter his dead body was found buried in the house of A-
1; (3) during interrogation A-1 made a disclosure statement
and consequently lead the police party to his sitting room
where he pointed out a spot covered by a cot and thereafter
he dug the floor and, the dead body of the deceased was
recovered from a five feet deep pit; and (4) recovery of doe
(woodcutter) from his possession bearing the same human
blood group as that of the deceased. Relying upon these
circumstances the trial court convicted A-1 and A-2 on both
the counts and sentenced them to imprisonment for life on
the first count and for five years on the second count but
acquitted A-3. ’Me High Court dismissed the appeal of A-1.
However, it acquitted A-2 on the ground that there was no
evidence to connect her with the commission of the murder
but maintained her conviction and sentence under sections
201/34 on the ground that she being the inmate of the house
was in the know of the fact that the dead body was burried
in the house with a view to causing the disappearance of
evidence and she must have been necessarily involved in the
process of digging a grave of five feet deep, the filling of
the grave and erasing the traces etc. Both the accused
filed appeals in this Courts.
Dismissing the appeal of A-1 and allowing the appeal of A-2,
this Court,
66
HELD: 1. The chain of circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution and accepted by the Courts below leaves no
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
manner of doubt that A-1 committed the murder. Accordingly
his conviction and sentence is upheld. [68B]
2. There is not an iota of evidence on the record not even
a whisper to the effect that it was A-2 who helped in
concealing or causing the evidence of the commission of the
offence to disappear. Simply because she is the wife of A-1
and as such is supposed to be living in the same house, It
cannot be assumed that she was guilty of the offence under
section
201/34. A-1 may or may not have taken help of his wife in
concealing the dead body. Her being wife of A-1 by itself
is not sufficient to prove the charge under section 201/34.
She is accordingly acquitted of that charge.
[68H, 69A-B]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 645 of
1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.3.89 of the Delhi High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 270/85.
AND
Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 1989.
A.P. Mohanty and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellants.
K. Lahri, V.C. Mahajan, Mrs. Indra Sawhney and B.K. Prasad
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J. Sardar Singh, his wife Saraswati and his
brother’s wife Savitri were charged under Sections 302/34
and 201/34, Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of one
Charanjit. The trial Court convicted Sardar Singh and his
wife Saraswati on both the counts and sentenced them to
imprisonment for life on the first count and for five years
on the second count. Accused Savitri was, however,
acquitted by the trial Court. The High Court dismissed the
appeal filed by Sardar Singh. Saraswati was acquitted of
the charge under Sections 302/34, IPC but her conviction and
sentence Under Section 201/34 IPC was maintained by the High
Court. These two appeals are by Sardar Singh and Saraswati
against the judgment of the High Court.
67
Sardar Singh, appellant and one Tara Chand are real
brothers. Both the them were residing in village Jhatikara.
They were living in adjoining houses. Deceased Charanjit
was living in a house adjacent to their houses. Charanjit’s
wife had died about ten years ago and he was living in the
house by himself. Deceased Charanjit had developed illicit
relation with Savitri wife of Tara Chand and also with
appellant-Saraswati.
The prosecution case in a nut-shell is that deceased
Charanjit was having illicit relations with both Saraswati
and Savitri and used to visit them during night for the last
so many years. On March 31, 1983 the deceased had gone to
sleep in his house in the evening and did not appear
thereafter. On April 4, 1983 Lakhmi Chand, brother of the
deceased, lodged report with the police expressing suspicion
against the appellants and Savitri. It is alleged that
during the course of interrogation Sardar Singh-appellant
made a disclosure statement and consequently led the policy
party to his sitting room where he pointed out a spot
covered by a cot. Sardar Singh, thereafter, dug the floor
and the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a five
feet deep grave. Thereafter, at the pointing out of the
appellant Sardar Singh, the police also seized doe (wood
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
cutter) and knife contained in a canvas bag hanging in the
adjacent room. The dead body was tied with a rope and was
wrapped in three gunny bags. The recovered knife had no
blood stained while the doe was found stained with blood.
On examination by the Serologist the blood stains on the doe
were found to be human and of the same group as that of the
deceased.
The entire case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by
the prosecution are as under:
(1) The deceased had illicit relations with Saraswati and
Savitri, wife and brother’s wife of appellant Sardar Singh.
(2) The deceased was last seen on the night of March 31,
1983 when he went to sleep in his house and thereafter his
dead body was found buried in the appellants’ house.
(3) Sardar Singh appellant, on interrogation made a
disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the dead
body from a five feet deep pit in the sitting room of the
appellants.
(4) Recovery of doe from the possession of the appellant
which was
68
found to bear the same human blood group as that of the
deceased.
Relying upon the above mentioned circumstances the trial
Court and the High Court have convicted the appellants. So
far as appellant-Sardar Singh is concerned, the chain of
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by
the courts below leaves no manner of doubt that it was he
who committed the murder of Charanjit. We have been taken
through the judgments of the trial Court and that of the
High Court. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions
reached therein. We, therefore, uphold the conviction and
sentenced of appellant-Sardar Singh and dismiss his appeal.
So far as appellant-Saraswati is concerned the High Court
dealt with her case in the following manner:
"Before we part with this order, there is one
more fact which needs our consideration. In
this case, the disclosure that led to the
recovery of the dead body has been made by
Sardar Singh appellant. There is no evidence
direct or indirect to connect the appellant
Saraswati with the commission of murder,
though it can safely be said that she being
the inmate of the house was in know of the
fact that the dead body was buried in the
house with a view to cause the disappearance
of evidence. In our view, the process of
digging a grave of 5 feet deep and of the size
of the deceased in length, the filling of the
grave and then erasing the traces of the same
is a long process and she must have been
necessarily involved in the same. since, in
our view, there is no evidence to connect her
with the commission of murder we acquit the
appellant Saraswati of the charge under
Section 302/34 IPC but maintain her conviction
and sentence under Section 201/34 IPC."
We are of the view that the reasoning adopted by the High
Court in acquitting Saraswati of the charge under Section
302/34 IPC is equally applicable to the charge against her
under Section 201/34 IPC. It may be correct that the
process of digging a grave of five feet deep, the filling of
the grave and then erasing the traces etc. may not have been
done by Sardar Singh alone but there is not an iota of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
evidence on the record not even a whisper to the effect that
it was Saraswati who helped him in
69
concealing or causing the evidence of the commission of the
offence to disappear. Simply because she is the wife of
appellant Sardar Singh and as such is supposed to be living
in the same house, it cannot be assumed that she was guilty
of the offence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal
Code. According to the Prosecution Saraswati was having
illicit relation with the deceased for several years.
Sardar Singh may or may not have taken her help in
concealing the dead body. Her being wife of Sardar Singh by
itself is not sufficient to prove the charge under Section
201/34 IPC against her. We, therefore, give benefit of
doubt to Saraswati, allow her appeal and acquit her of the
charge under Section 201/34, Indian Penal Code. She is
already on bail. Her bail-bonds are cancelled.
T.N.A. Crl. A. No.645/89 dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No. 534/89 allowed.
70