DR. V. K. SAXENA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND VICE VERSA

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 758 · Decided: 29-08-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

'A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
'758 
DR. V. K. ~AXENA 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND VICE VERSA 
August 29, 1983 
[Y. V. CHANf?RACHUD 9.J., AMARENDRA NATH SEN 
AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.j 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966-0rder XXl Rule 6, read with Article 136 of 
the Constitution-Special Leave to appeal cannot be granted against the convictiOn 
and Sentence, (i) when the circu1nstantial evidence on record prove the motive and 
connect ihe accused to the crime and' concealment thereof and (ii) when the High 
Court reduced the death sentence to one of life imprison1nent for the reason that 
the two judges differed on the question of the guilt of the accused. 
Dis1nissing the petition of the accused and the States petitions against 
the acquittal of the co-accused and for. enhancement of the sentence to death 
·sentence, the Court, 
· 
HELD : (i) In the instant case, the three petitions for special leave to 
appeal do not warrant interference by the Court. [761 DJ 
2:1 The circumstantial evidence on record clearly connect the accused 
with the ctime and concealment thereof. Regarding motive, there "is the 
clearest evidence in that Dr. Saxena had an illicit affair with the co-accused, a 
nurse due to which he used to harass, pressurise, threaten and assualt the 
deceased Sudha his wife. Her murder was a consummation which the nurse 
must have devoutly W1Shed for. [760 H; 761 E] 
2:2 Further the conduct of the accused, in buying a box packing the 
dead body of his wife into that box, travelling with that box from Hardoi 
(the venue of crime) to Lucknow by the Sialdah Express, taking another train 
from Lucknow to Kanpur, throwing the box on way into the Ganges anJ 
little realising that the Ganges had refused to accept the box which contained 
tell-tale evidence of the dastardly murder of a defenc~less woman, informing 
his own parents.and parents-in-law that the deceased ran away from the house 
and finally lodging a false and misleading reports to the same effect with the 
police cannot favour the theory of commission of suicide by her. 
[760 G-H; 761 A-B] 
H 
Jn the presence of Dr. Saxena in the house, the deceased could not have 
hung herself by a rope in th;it very house that too with a. two year child near 
her. Neither a rope was foi.Ind nor the medical evidence did show that the 
deatl\ was due to hanging. [760 G-H] 
.~ 
..... 
--\ 
; 
'I, 
v.it. SAXENA·v. u.P. (Chamlrachud, C.i.) 
759 
(3) Faced with such a situation where the death sentence so justifiably 
imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is reduced to life imprison1nent by the 
Hiah Court under Sections 392 and 370 Crl. P.C., for the reason that the two 
learned Judges differed on the question as to the auilt of the accused, the 
Supreme Court cannot interf~~re under Order XXI against the sentence. 
[761 C-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition 
Nos. 3372of1980 And 581-82 of 1981. 
From the judgment and order dated the 30th October, 1980 of 
the High Court of Allahabad in Capital Reference No. 1 of 1980 in 
Cr!. Appeals Nos. 43 & 70 of 1980 & 62 of 1980. 
R.K. Garg, V.J. Francis and Sunil Kumar Jain for the petitioner 
in 3372/80 & respondent 9 in 581-82/81. 
K.G. Bhagat Addi. Solictor Genera), Da/veer Bhandari for the 
petitioner in 581-82 of 1981 & respondent 9 in 3372 of 1980. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
' 
CHANDRACHUD, C. J. These three Special Leave Petitions arise 
out of a prosecution in which one Dr. V.K. Saxena and a Nurse, 
Bhagwati Singh were charged, imer a/ia, for the murder of Sudha, 
the wife of Dr. Saxena. The learned Sessions Judge, Hardoi convic-
ted Dr. Saxena under sections 120-B, 302 and 201 ofthe penal Code 
and awarded the sentence of death for the offence of ·murder. 
Bhagwati Singh was convicted under section 120-B and was sentenced 
to life imprisonment. 
The appeals filed by the two accused and the confirmation 
proceedings came up for hearing in the Allahabad High Court before 
Hari Swarup and M. Murtaza Husain, JJ. 
Hari ·swarup, J. agreed 
. that the box in which the dead body of Sudha was packed was 
thrown by the accused Dr. V.K,. Saxena from a running train between 
Lncknow and Kanpur. 
However, according to the learned Judge, 
that was not enough to sustain the. charges because, the possibility 
that Sudha died as a result of suicidal hanging could not be excluded 
and if a person destroys evidence of suicide committed by another, 
he commits no offence. 
Murtaza Husain, J. differed from Hari-
Swarup, J.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.