SANJEEV KUMAR versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 217 · Decided: 22-01-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

)._ 
SANJEEV KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
JANUARY 22, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Criminal Tlial : 
Circumstantial evidence-Murder-Accused seen going to the house of 
deceased and was seen coming out of the house after the occu"ence with 
knife in his hand-Accused with bloodstained clothes on his person went to 
the house of witness and requested her to bring a set of clothes from the house 
A 
B 
c 
of co-accused for the purpose of changing-Bloodstained clothes recovered 
from the house of co-accused-Reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist D 
con finned presence of human blood 011 these clothes for which accused did 
not off er any expla11ation-Knif e stained with human blood was recovered 
from the house of accused following his disclosure statement-Held : Under 
these circumstances, the chain of circumstances is complete and the charge 
of murder against accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt-Evide11ce Act, 
1872, S.27-Crimi11al Procedure Code, 1973, S.313. 
Pe11al Code, 1860: Sections 120-B, 302/120-B and 201. 
E 
· Murder-Commission of-By accused-Accused is the 11ephew of co-
accused--No evidence tb establish conspiracy between accused and co- ac-
F 
cused to commit murde,......ffowever, co-accused handed over a set of clothes 
to the witness for accused which he could cha11ge-1he bloodstained clothes 
of accused were subsequently recovered from the house of co-accused-Held 
: 11te mere fact that accused is the nephew of co-accused not sufficient to 
lead 011 inference of conspiracy-However, the two circumstances fully estab-
G 
lish the charge against the co-accused-Hence, conviction of co-accused 
upheld but the sentence reduced to the period already undergone. 
Section 212--0ffence-lngredients of-No evidence about knowledge of 
commission of offence and intention of screening· the off ender from legal 
punishment-Held : Under these circumstances, accused acquitted. 
H 
217 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted under Section 
B 
302 read with Sections 120-8 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sen-
tenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant-accused No. 3 was 
convicted under Section 212 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment 
for 5 years. The High Court upheld the convictions. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution accused No. 1 was the nephew of 
accused No. 2. On the day of occurrence accused No. 1 was seen going to 
the house of the deceased and was seen coming out of the house of the 
deceased immediately after the occurrence with a knife in his hand. Shortly 
after the occurrence accused No. 1 went to the house of the witness with 
C bloodstained clothes on his person and requested her to bring a set of 
clothes for his change from the house of accused No. 2. The bloodstained 
clothes were subsequently recovered from the house of accused No. 2. The 
reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist indicated presence of 
human blood on these clothes for which accused No. 1 had not offered any 
explanation under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The 
D knife stained with human blood was recovered from the residence of 
accused No. 1 pursuant to his disclosure statement. 
.. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD : 1. In the circumstances of the case, the conclusion is 
irresistible that the chain of circumstances is complete and the charge of 
. murder against accused No.1 is proved beyond reasonable doubt. [227-F] 
2. There is not an iota of material to establish the alleged agreement 
between accused No.1 and accused No.2 to commit the murder of the 
F deceased. The mere fact that accused No. 1 is the nephew of accused No. 
2 cannot be held to be sufficient to lead an inference of conspiracy. 
However, it is established that accused No. 2 handed over a set of clothes 
to the witness for accused No. 1 which he could change and that the 
bloodstained clothes were subsequently recovered from the house of ac-
G cosed No. 2. These two circumstances fully establish the charge under 
Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 against accused No. 2. However, the 
sentence in respect of accused No. 2 is reduced to the period already 
undergone. [228-A] 
3. To attract the provisions of Section 212 IPC it is necessary to 
H establish commission of an offence, harbouring or concealing the person 
/ 
S. KUMAR v. STATE(PATTANAIK, J.) 
219 
-+ 
•:nown or believed to be the o

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