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