Summary
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. Ile entire case was based on the circumstantial evidence : (a) the deceased 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 the floor and, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a five 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-1 and A-2 on both the counts and sentenced them to imprisonment for life on the first count and for five years on the second count but acquitted A-3. 'Me High Court dismissed 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 maintained 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 burried in the house with a view to causing the disappearance of evidence and she must have been necessarily involved in the process of digging a grave of five feet deep, the filling of the grave and erasing the traces etc. Both the accused filed appeals in this Courts.Dismissing the appeal of A-1 and allowing the appeal of A-2, this Court, 66HELD: 1. The chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the Courts below leaves no manner of doubt that A-1 committed the murder. Accordingly his conviction and sentence is upheld. [68B]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 of the commission of the offence to disappear. Simply because she is the wife of A-1 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-1 may or may not have taken help of his wife in concealing the dead body. Her being wife of A-1 by itself is not sufficient to prove the charge under section 201/34.She is accordingly acquitted of that charge.[68H, 69A-B]See the full content of this document
Extract
Sardar Singh Etc. Etc. VS. State (Delhi Administration, Delhi)
PETITIONER: SARDAR SINGH ETC. ETC.Vs.RESPONDENT: STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI)DATE OF JUDGMENT23/02/1993BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J)BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J)MOHAN, S. (J)CITATION: 1993 AIR 1696 1993 SCR (2) 65 1993 SCC Supl. (2) 393 JT 1993 (4) 534 1993 SCALE (1)681ACT: Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 3.Indian Penal Code, 1860. Secti...
See the full content of this document