Judgment

BEG, J.:- The appellant before us by special leave, Sawal Das, his father Jamuna Prasad, and his stepmother Kalawati Devi, were charged with offences punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code simpliciter on the allegation that they had intentionally caused the death of Smt. Chanda Devi, the wife of the appellant, on 28-5-1965 in their house in mohalla Andi Gola in Muzaffarpur, in Bihar. The appellant Sawal Das, his father Jamuna Prasad, their motor driver Sita Ram, and either other persons were charged under Section 201 Indian Penal Code for having caused the disappearance of the body of Smt. Chanda Devi with a view to concealing the murder Furthermore, Smt. Kalawati Devi was charged under Section 302/109 Indian Penal Code for having instigated the murder of Chanda Devi. The trial Court had amended and converted the charges against the appellant and Jamuna Prasad and Kalawati Devi into those under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code and convicted each of them with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal Code for the offence of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. It had also convicted the appellant and his father under Section 201 Indian Penal Code, but it did not pass separate sentences against them for this offence. The driver Sita Ram was also convicted under Section 201 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years Rigorous imprisonment. It acquitted all the other accused person. On appeal, the High Court of Patna had acquitted the appellant, his father, and his stepmother of offences punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, but it found the appellant alone guilty of an offence punishable under S. 302 Indian Penal Code simpliciter and sentenced him of life imprisonment. It has also found the appellant and his father guilty under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. But, while passing a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment of Jamuna Prasad, it had not passed a separate sentence on the appellant in view of his conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. It had allowed appeals of Kalwati Devi and Sita Ram and acquitted them.

2. The whole case against the appellant depends upon circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness of the murder which was alleged to have been committed by the appellant, his father, and step-mother conjointly on the morning of 28-5-1965 at about 8.00 a.m. The Sessions Judge had relied upon the following proved facts and circumstances to convict the three accused persons of murder under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code:

1. The relations between Smt. Chands Devi and her step -mother-in-law, Smt. Kalwati Devi, who were living in the same house with their respective husbands and children, were strained so that there were frequent quarrels between them.

2. The appellant as well as his father Jamuna Prasad used to take the side of Smt. Kalawati in the quarrels between the murdered wife and her mother-in-law.

3. On the morning of the murder. there was a particularly sharp quarrel between the deceased and Smt. Kalawati, so that Smt. Kalawati, who was living in a room adjoining that of Smt. Chanda Devi on the first floor of the house called out to the appellant that his "rascal wife" was quarrelling with her and informed him as well as Jamuna that either she or Chanda Devi will live in the house henceforth.

4. The appellant and his father Jamuna Prasad went upstairs to the Verandah where the quarrel was staking place and the appellant took or pushed Chanda Devi inside her room followed by the appellant s father and his step mother.

5. Immediately after that, cries of at least "Bachao" "Bachao", were heard from inside the room. Nobody heard the voice of Smt. Chanda Devi after that.

6. Immediately after these cries, the children of Chanda Devi were heard crying and uttering words indicating that their mother was either being killed or had been killed.

7. A short while after that, the appellant and his father Jamuna Prasad were seen bringing a gunny bag with the help of their driver, S