Holding

Sardar Singh's conviction for murder is upheld, and Saraswati's conviction for concealing evidence under Section 201/34 is quashed due to lack of evidentiary support.

Summary

Sardar Singh, his wife Saraswati and his brother's wife Savitri were charged with murder and with concealing evidence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence: the deceased's illicit relationship with Saraswati and Savitri, the discovery of his body buried in Sardar's house after a disclosure by Sardar, and a blood‑stained woodcutter matching the victim's blood group. The trial court convicted Sardar and Saraswati on both counts and acquitted Savitri; the Delhi High Court upheld Sardar's conviction, acquitted Saraswati of murder but maintained her conviction for concealing evidence. Both appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the chain of circumstances incontrovertibly proved Sardar Singh's guilt for murder, but found no evidence linking Saraswati to the act of concealing the body, rejecting the inference that her mere co‑habitation made her guilty under Section 201. Consequently, Sardar Singh's conviction and sentence were affirmed, while Saraswati's conviction under Section 201 was set aside. The appeals were disposed accordingly, with Sardar Singh's appeal dismissed and Saraswati's appeal allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the circumstantial evidence established the guilt of Sardar Singh for murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC.
Whether Saraswati can be convicted under Section 201/34 IPC for concealing the evidence of the offence merely on the basis of her residence in the same house.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 3
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdercircumstantial evidenceSection 201 IPCconcealing evidenceacquittalbenefit of doubtcriminal appealIndian Penal Code

Judgment

-,~
,

SARDAR SINGH ETC. ETC. A
,__,, v.
1" STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI)

FEBRUARY 23, 1993
B
(KULDIP SINGH AND S. MOHAN, JJ.]
~
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
based on circumstantial evidence-Validity of.
c

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
the Door and the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a live feet E
~""'( 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
the appeal of A-1. However, it acquitted A-2 on the ground that there was
F

- '
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-
pearance of evidence and she must have been necessarily involved in the G
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
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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

Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 1989.
E
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 in the house
by himself. Deceased Charanjit had developed illicit relation with Savitri
wife of Tara Chand and also with appellant-Saraswati.
B
The prosecution case in a nut-shell is that deceased Charanjit was
having illicit relations with both Saraswati and Savitri and used to visit !:hem
during night for the last so many years. On March 31, 1983 the deceased
had gone to sleep in his house in the evening and did not appear thereafter.
On April 4, 1983 Lakhmi Chand, brother of the deceased, lodged report C
with the police expressing suspicion against the appellants and Savitri. It is
alleged that during the course of interrogation Sardar Singh-appellant
made a disclosure statement and consequently led the policy party to his
sitting room where he pointed out a spot covered by a cot. Sardar Singh,
thereafter, dug the floor and the dead body of the deceased was recovered
from a five feet deep grave. Thereafter, at the pointing out of the appellant D
Sardar Singh, the police also seized doe (wood cutter) and knife contained
in a canvas bag hanging in the adjacent room. The dead body was tied with
a rope and was wrapped in three gunny bags. The recovered knife had no
blood stained while the doe was found stained with blood. On examination
- -{ by the Serologist the blood stains on the doe were found to be human and E
of the same group as that of the deceased.

The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as under:

(1) The deceased had illicit relations with Saraswati and Savitri, wife F
___ ....._ and brother's wife of appellant Sardar Singh.

(2) The deceased was last seen on the night of March 31, 1983 when
he went to sleep in his house and thereafter his dead body was found
buried in the appellants' house. G

(3) Sardar Singh appellant, on interrogation made a disclosure state-
ment leading to the recovery of the dead body from a five feet deep pit in
the sitting room of the appellants.

(4) Recovery of doe from the possession of the appellant which was H
11
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.

A found to bear the same human blood group as that of the deceased.

Relying upon the above mentioned circumstances the trial Court and
the High Court have convicted the appellants. So far as appellant-Sardar
Singb is concerned, the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecu-
tion and accepted by the courts below leaves no manner of doubt that it
B was he who committed the murder of Charanjit. We have been taken
through the judgments of the trial Court and that of the High Court. We
agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein. We, there-
fore, uphold .the conviction and sentenced of appellant-Sardar Singb and
dismiss his appeal.
c So far as appellant-Saraswati is concerned the High Court dealt with
her case in the following manner:

"Before we part with this order, there is one more fact
which needs our consideration. In this case, the disclosure
D that led to the recovery of the dead body has been made
by Sardar Singh appellant. There is no evidence direct or
indirect to connect the appellant Saraswati with the com-
mission of murder, though it can safely be said that she
being the inmate of the house was in know of the fact that
the dead body was buried in the house with a view to cause
E the disappearance of evidence. In our view, the process
of digging a grave of 5 feet deep and of the size of the
deceased in length, the filling of the grave and then erasing
the traces of the same is a long process and she must have
been necessarily involved in the same. since, in our view,
F there is no evidence to connect her with the commission
of murder we acquit the appellant Saraswati of the charge
under Section 302/34 !PC but maintain her convicticin and
sentence under Section 201/34 IPC."

We are of the view that the reasoning adopted by the High Court in
G acquitting Saraswati of the charge under Section 302/34 !PC is equally
applicable to the charge against her under Section 201/34 !PC. It may be
correct that the process of digging a grave of five feet deep, the filling of
the grave and then erasing the traces etc. may not have been done by
Sardar Singh alone but there is not an iota of evidence on the record not
H even a whisper to the effect that it was Saraswati who helped him in
SARDAR SINGH v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) [KULDIP SINGH, J.) 69.

concealing or causing the evidence of the commission of the offence to A
disappear. Simply because she is the wife of appellant Sardar Singh 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 of the Indian Penal
Code. According to the Prosecution Saraswati was having illicit relation
with the deceased for several years. Sardar Singh may or may not have
taken her help in concealing the dead body. Her being wife of Sardar Singh B
by itself is not sufficient to prove the charge under Section 201/34 !PC
against her. We, therefore, give benefit of doubt to Saraswati, allow her
appeal and acquit her of the charge under Section 201/34, Indian Penal
Code. She is already on bail. Her bail-bonds are cancelled.

T.N.A. Cr!. A. No.645/89 - dismissed.
~-·
Criminal Appeal No. 534/89 - allowed.

-
,4,