SURINDER PAL JAIN versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 05-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SURINDER PAL JAIN 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
MARCH 5, 1993 
B 
(DR. A.S. ANAND AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
Indian Pe11al (:ode, 1860: 
Sections 203 and 302-Appellant accused of murdering his wife-No 
C eye witness of occurrence-Prosecutio11 case based on circumstantial 
evidence-Disclosure statement of accused and recovery of ornaments of 
deceased in pursuance thereof-Dogs of dog squad pointing to appel-
lant-Sessio11s Court acquitti11g accused-High Court setti11g aside acquittal 
and convicting appellant-Held When case based on circumstantial 
evidence-Motive assumes perti11ent significa11ce-Finding of guilt recorded by 
D High Court not sustai11able in law. 
E 
The appellant and his wife went to sleep in the back varandah of 
their house on the fateful night of 25th/26th July, 1976 w~ile the appellant's . 
brother alongwith his wife and children went to sleep separately in their 
bed-room in the same house. The Police Control Room was informed over 
the telephone by a neighbour Sulekh Chand Jain at 4.55 A.M. that an 
incident had taken place in the house and on receiving the telephone 
message, the S.I. made a record of it in the daily diary and passed on the 
information to the duty ollicer at the police station, who deputed an A.S.I. 
to proceed to the spot for investigation. After reaching the spot, the A.S.I. 
F 
informed the police station on telephone that a murder had taken place. 
The information was recorded and the SHO immediately left for the spot 
alongwith S.I. The police party arrived at the spot at about 5.35 a.m. and 
took charge of the investigation. The appellant was present near the 
dead-body and on interrogation, the appellant informed the police party 
G that his brother and family had retired for the night in their bed room at 
about 10.00 P.M. and he alongwith his wife had slept in the back verandah, 
and that when he got up at 3.45 A.M. he noticed that his wife had been 
murdered by somebody by strangulation while committing the theft of the 
gold chain, eartops and golden bangles that she was wearing. 
H 
The crime team as well as the dog squad were summoned. Both the 
226 
-
SURlNDER PAL v. DELHI ADMN. 
227 
dogs of the dog squad were first let loose and after picking up the smell 
from the lock lying in the comer of the back courtyard and from the spot, 
went to the room where the appellant was sitting and each of the dogs 
pointed towards him by turn. That raised a suspicion against the appel· 
lant. The SHO then asked the appellant to remove his shirt and found that 
the appellant had injuries in the nature of bruises etc. on the front part 
of his, body, on the chest, as well as Oll his back. The appellant ""s 
thereafter taken for further interrogation to the police station, and in the 
presence of the Sub Inspector, PWI and .PW2 he made a disclosure 
statement to the effect that he had concealed the golden chain and the 
bangles in his bathroom and in pursuance of the disclosure statement, the 
appellant led the police party to the bathroom of his house and after 
removing the cover from the drain hole, took out the golden chain and the 
bangles and handed them oyer to SHO. The appellant was placed under 
arrest. After the disclosure statement was made the case which was 
originally registered under Section 460 IPC was converted into one under 
Section 302 read with section 203 IPC. 
After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against 
the appellant and he was tried for offences under Section 302/203 !PC in 
the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution sought to 
A 
B 
c 
D 
. establish the case against the appellant on the basis of circumstantial 
evidence, there being no eye-witness of the occurrence. The circumstances E 
·y set up by the prosecution were : (i) information to the police at 4.55 A.M 
given by a neighbour and not the appellant; (ii) that information that a 
murder had taken place was not given but intimating the happening of an 
incident; (iii) The accused having slept at night in the verandah with the 
deceased after having locked the collapsable door of the verandah from 
F 
inside; (iv) The deceased and accused were last seen together; (v) The dogs 
)· 
of the dog squad having pointed out to the accused after picking up scent 
from the lock; (vi) The ornaments which were on the person of the 
deceased "'·bile she \\'as sleeping, and found 1nissing \Vhen sht' was dis-
covered dead, were recovered from the drain hole of the bath room G

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