LexSARDAR SINGH versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-,~ , SARDAR SINGH ETC. ETC. A ,__,, v. 1" STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI) FEBRUARY 23, 1993 (KULDIP SINGH AND S. MOHAN, JJ.] B ~ Indian Evidence Ac~ 1872: Section 3. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302/34 and 201/34. Murder-Caus- - ing the evidence of the Commission of the offence to disappear-Conviction c based on circumstantial evidence-Validity of. 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. The entire case was based on the circumstantial evidence : (a) the deceased D 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 E the Door and the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a live 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· l and A-2 on both the counts and sentenced them to imprisonment for life on the first count and for live - years on the second couut but acquitted A-3. The High Court dismissed F 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 main· - ' tained 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 hurried in the house with a view to causing the disap- G pearance of evidence and she must have been necessarily involved in the process of digging a grave of live feet deep, the filling of the grave and erasing the traces etc. Both the accused filed appeals in this Courts. -:,,.4. Dismissing the appeal of A-1 and allowing the appeal of A-2, this Court, H 65 A B c 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R. HELD: 1. The chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the Courts below leaves no manner or doubt that A·l committed the murder. Accordingly his conviction and sentence is upheld. [688] 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 or the commission of the offence to disappear. Simply because she is the wife or A·l 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·l may or may not have taken help of his wife in concealing the dead body. Her being wife of A·l by itself is not sufficient to prove the charge under section 201/34. She is accordingly acquitted or that charge. [68H, 69A-B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 645 of 1989. D From the Judgment and Order dated 17.3.89 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 270/85. AND E 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. - F 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 (!PC) for the murder of one Charanjit. The trial Court convicted Sardar · Singh and his wife Saraswati on both the counts and sentenced them to · G 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 302134, !PC but her conviction and sentence 1mder Section 201/34 !PC was maintained by the High Court. These two appeals are H by Sardar Singh and Saraswati against the judgment of the High Court. - .~. --- SARDAR SINGH v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) [KULDIP SINGH, J.j 67 Sardar Singh, appellant and one Tara Chand are real brothers. Both A 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.