Special leave Petition Nos 3372 of 1980 And 581 82 of 1981
From the judgment and order dated the 30th October 1980 of the High Court of Allahabad in Capital Reference No 1 of 1980 in Crl
Appeals Nos 43  70 of 1980  62 of 1980
RK Garg VJ Francis and Sunil Kumar Jain for the petitioner in 337280  respondent 9 in 581 8281
KC Bhagat Addl
Solictor General Dalveer Bhandari for the petitioner in 581 82 of 1981  respondent 9 in 3372 of 1980
The order of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD C J
These three Special Leave Petitions arise out of a prosecution in which one Dr VK Saxena and a Nurse Bhagwati Singh were charged inter alia for the murder of Sudha the wife of Dr Saxena
The learned Sessions Judge Hardoi convicted Dr Saxena under sections 120 B 302 and 201 of the penal Code and awarded the sentence of death for the offence of murder
Bhagwati Singh was convicted under section 120 B and was sentenced to life imprisonment
The appeals filed by the two accused and the confirmation proceedings came up for hearing in the Allahabad High Court before Hari Swarup and M Murtaza Husain JJ
Hari Swarup J agreed that the box in which the dead body of Sudha was packed was thrown by the accused Dr VK Saxena from a running train between Lucknow and Kanpur
However according to the learned Judge that was not enough to sustain the charges because the possibility that Sudha died as a result of suicidal hanging could not be excluded and if a person destroys evidence of suicide committed by another he commits no offence
Murtaza Husain J differed from Hari Swarup J and held that Dr Saxena had committed the murder of 760 his wife put her dead body in a box and threw that box from a running train
Unfortunately for Dr Saxena aud fortunately for the cause of justice the massive and menciful pillars of the bridge over the Ganges intercepted the box as a result of which the box fell on the railway track and not into the Ganges
By reason of the difference of views between the two learned Judges the proceedings were placed before section Malik J who agreed with Murtaza Husain J
By an order dated October 30 1980 the High Court upheld the conviction of Dr VK Saxena under sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code but reduced the sentence of death to life imprisonment
The Nurse Bhagwati Singh was acquitted by the High Court of the charge of conspiracy
Dr Saxena has filed Special Leave Petition No 3372 of 1980 challenging the order of conviction and sentence
Special Leave Petition No 581 of 1981 is filed by the State of U P contending that Dr Saxena must be sentenced to death
Special Leave Petition No 582 of 1981 is filed by the State of UP against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court in favour of Bhagwati Singh
There is no merit whatsoever in the Special Leave Petition filed by Dr Sexena
We have heard Shri RK Garg for over an hour but we are unable to see even the semblance of point in favour of his client
With respect we are somewhat surprised that having held that Dr Saxena had thrown the box containing the body of his deceased wife from a running train Hari Swarup J should have persuaded himself to take the view that Sudha may have committed suicide by hanging herself
It is plain logic that if she had commit ted suicide there was no reason for her husband to pack her dead body in a box and throw that box from a running train into a river
Dr Saxena travelled with that box from Hardoi to Lucknow by the Sialdah Express took another train from Lucknow to Kanpur and threw the box on way
It is also impossible to understand how when Dr Saxena was himself present in the house Sudha could hang herself by a rope in that very House with a two year old child near her
No rope was found in the house and the medical evidence does not show that Sudha hanged herself
The conduct of Dr Saxena in buying u box packing the dead body of his wife into that box and throwing it from a running train leaves no doubt that he committed her murder
There is the clearest evidence of motive on the record of the case
Dr Saxena had an illicit affair with the Nurse due to which he used to harass pressurise threaten and assault Sudha 761 Not only did he tell Sudha s father and his own father falsely that Sudha had run away but he lodged false and misleading reports that she had run away
Little did he realise that the Ganges had refused to accept the box which contained tell tale evidence of the dastardly murder of a defenceless woman
Special Leave Petition No 3372 of 1980 must therefore be dismissed
In so far as Special Leave Petition No 581 of 1981 is concerned if only Hari Swarup J had taken a mere pragmatic view of the facts he would not have persuaded himself to the view that Sudha might have committed sucide by hanging herself
Presumably the death sentence so justifiably imposed by the learned Sessions Judge on Dr Saxena was reduced to life imprisonment for the reason that the two learned Judges differed on the question as to the guilt or Dr Saxena
If the High Court were to uphold the sentence of death we would not have interfered with that sentence
But we are faced with a situation in which the High Court has reduced the sentence of death to imprisonment for life
We do not feel called upon to restore the sentence of death
In so far as Special Leave Petition No 582 of 1981 is concerned there is not the slightest doubt that Bhagwati Singh is the root cause of the murder of Sudha wife of her paramour Dr Saxena
We have also no doubt that Sudha s murder was a consummation which Bhagwati Singh must have devoutly wished for
But there is neither evidence of conspiracy between her and Dr Saxena to commit the murder of Sudha nor any evidence that she was present at or about the time of Sudha s murder
We therefore dismiss the special leave petition though not without expressing our severe resentment against the overall conduct of Bhagwati Singh
She like Dr Saxena has disgraced a noble profession
Together they are responsible for the murder of an innocent woman one morally and the other legally
SR Petition dismissed


Summary:
Dismissing the petition of the accused and the States petitions against the acquittal of the co accused and for enhancement of the sentence to death sentence the Court  HELD i In the instant case the three petitions for special leave to appeal do not warrant interference by the Court
761 D 21 The circumstantial evidence on record clearly connect the accused with the crime and concealment thereof
Regarding motive there is the clearest evidence in that Dr Saxena had an illicit affair with the co accused a nurse due to which he used to harass pressurise threaten and assualt the deceased Sudha his wife
Her murder was a Consummation which the nurse must have devoutly wished for
760 H 761 E 22 Further the conduct of the accused in buying a box packing the dead body of his wife into that box travelling with that box from Hardoi the venue of crime to Lucknow by the Sialdah Express taking another train from Lucknow to Kanpur throwing the box on way into the Ganges and little realising that the Ganges had refused to accept the box which contained tell tale evidence of the dastardly murder of a defenceless woman informing his own parents and parents in law that the deceased ran away from the house and finally lodging a false and misleading reports to the same effect with the police cannot favour the theory of commission of suicide by her
760 G H 761 A B In the presence of Dr Saxena in the house the deceased could not have hung herself by a rope in that very house that too with a two year child near her
Neither a rope was found nor the medical evidence did show that the death was due to hanging
760 G H 759 3 Faced with such a situation where the death sentence so justifiable imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is reduced to life imprisonment by the High Court under Sections 392 and 370 Crl
PC for the reason that the two learned Judges differed on the question as to the guilt of the accused the Supreme Court cannot interfere under order XXI against the sentence
761 C D