STATE OF U.P. versus KAPIL DEO AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 21-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. 
' 
v. 
KAPIL DEO AND ANOTHER 
AUGUST 21,1991 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJJ 
c 
Criminal Law: Indian Penal Code, 1960-Sections 302, 302 read 
with 34 and 20 I read with 34--Charge of murder and causing disap· 
pearance of evidence thereof-Prosecution evidence as to offence of 
murder rejected-Accused acquitted of charge of murder-Whether 
could be convicted for offence of causing disappearance of evidence of 
murder-Acquilla/ of one of the accused-Effect on co-accused. 
The respondents in the two apjieals were charged under Section 
302, Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 
34 IPC for t'1e murder of their domestic help and for causing disappea· 
D 
ranee of the commission of offence. 
The trial court acquitted all the four accused of the offence under 
~
Section 20 I read with Section 34 IPC but convicted one of them under 
Section 302 and the other three for the offence under Section 302 read 
with Section 34 and sentenced all of them to death. The High Court 
-£ 
E 
upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302, but reduced his 
>entence to life imprisonment. It acquitted the other three accused of 
111'-' 1Jf'fence under '.")et:t11u1 JO.! read with Section J4 IPC. 
The main accused, who was convicted under Section 302 IPC, 
appealed to this Court against his conviction. The State also fil~d an 
F 
appeal before this Court against the acquittal of two of the three 
accused for offenc.e under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Since 
the respondents in the State's appeal could not be served by the time the 
appeals came up for disposal, this Court heard the appeal of the lone 
accused and taking into consideration the evidence which had bearing 
on the accused's.appeal.only, allowed his appeal •. 
G 
H 
Subsequently, the State filed an appeal before this Court against 
the trial court's acquittal of the accused for the offence under Sec. 201 
read with section 34 IPC. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
692 
.. 
STATE OF U.P. v. KAPIL DEO 
693 
HELD: I. I The prosecution case collapsed so far as one of the 
accused, who was assigned the offensive part of the crime of murder,' is 
concerned, and he stands acquitted of the charge of m"rder. It is he 
who was seen cutting the throat of the deceased with a hig knife, and 
escaping from the scene of the occurrence, carrying a blood-stained 
knife in his hand, and was sought to be apprehended by the eye-
witnesses and others collectell there. When the evidence against him, 
occular 2s well as circumstantial, has cautiously been weighed by this 
Court resulting in his acquittal, it is difficult to convict the said accused 
for offence under section 201 read with 34 IPC. [6971>-F) 
Duvvur Dasratharammareddy v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, [1971) 
3 sec 247, relied on. 
A 
B 
c 
1.2 As regards the other accused, 0.1 careful consideratiQD of the 
evidence and other material on record, a different view than the one 
taken by the Sessions Court cannot be taken. The trial court when 
grappling with the matter took note of the evidence of the witnesses of 
recovery, namely, P. Ws 5 and II, wherefrom it was clear that a dead 
D 
body was found inside a bag kept in the trunk. That by itself was of no 
consequence and at hest gravely suspicious. Its linding was that a dead 
hody in a hag put inside a trunk was recovered from a room of the house 
and further the part played hy the accused in the placing of the dead 
body in that trunk was evidently not proved. Their individual statement· 
to P. W. 11 which alone, if at all admissible, does not reveal any disap· 
E 
pearance of evidence so as to screen the offender of murder. This state 
of evidence is insufficient to prove that two of the respondents to have 
placed. the dead body in the trunk. Having regard to the evidence of 
P. W s. S and 11 there is no reason to differ from the views expressed by 
the trial court and which was a possible view. As regards the fourth 
accused there is no evidence against her. [398F-H, 699A·DI 
F 
Vidya Sagar v. State of U.P., AIR 1977 SC 1116 at pages 1118· 
lll9, referred to. 
2. · One of the circumstances which weighed in favour of the main 
accused, who was acquitted was that he alone was not in the house to he G 
solely responsible for the murder when committed and at that time 
besides him therein were said to he the two respondents. What has heen 
spelled out in favour of that accused can with equal force apply to the 

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