Summarize the following court judgment. : 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. R.K. Garg	 V.J. Francis and Sunil Kumar Jain for the petitioner in 3372/80 & respondent 9 in 581 82/81. K.C. 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. V.K. 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. V.K. 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. V.K. 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 U.P.	 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 R.K. 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. S.R. Petition dismissed.

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] 2:1 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] 2:2 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. P.C.	 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]