Sawal Das vs State of Bihar - Case Analysis

Introduction of Sawal Das vs State of Bihar

The case of Sawal Das vs State of Bihar, 1974 revolves around the murder of Chanda Devi and the subsequent legal proceedings that questioned the role of the appellant and his co-accused in her death and the disposal of her body. The case raises important questions regarding the applicability of Section 34 of IPC and the scope of Section 201 of IPC. The decision of the Supreme Court in this case provides important insights into the role of appellate courts in passing sentences, even when earlier courts had failed to impose them and underlined the importance of thorough legal procedures in ensuring justice.

Historical Context and Facts of Sawal Das vs State of Bihar

The case at hand revolves around the strained relationship between Chanda Devi and Kalawati Devi, her step-mother in law who lived in the same house along with their families. Tensions between them led to frequent quarrels. 

Events leading to Murder

On the day of the murder, an intense quarrel escalated with Kalawati calling for the appellant and his father, Jamuna Prasad, to intervene. Kalawati expressed that either she or Chanda Devi would remain in the house.

The Alleged Murder

The appellant and his father took Chanda Devi inside her room followed by Kalawati. Shortly after, cries for help were heard from the room of Chanda Devi.

Disposal of the Body

The appellant, his father, their driver, Sita Ram and another individual were seen transporting a gunny bag suspected to contain the body of the Chanda Devi in the car. The car was driven to Pahleza Ghat, 50 miles away where her body was burned under suspicious circumstances without informing her relatives.

Investigation and Forensic Evidences

Upon investigation, traces of blood were found in the car. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including the strained relationship, the sequence of events leading to the death of the victim, the suspicious disposal of her body and the lack of transparency with her relatives and the customary funeral process.

Decision of the Trial Court

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC but no separate sentence was passed for his conviction under section 201 IPC.

Appeal in the High Court

Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court the Appellant approached the High Court. However, the High Court modified the conviction to section 302 IPC simpliciter and the conviction under section 201 IPC was upheld but the court did not specify a separate sentence for section 201.

Appeal in the Supreme Court

The appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court.

Issue addressed in Sawal Das vs State of Bihar

The main questions which was addressed in this case were-

• Whether the Supreme Court can pass a sentence under Section 201 IPC when the State did not appeal against the trial court’s failure to impose a sentence?

Legal Provisions involved in Sawal Das vs State of Bihar

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 34 of the Code deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 201 of the Code states that-

Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any infor-mation respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false-

• if a capital offence shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
• if punishable with imprisonment for life nd if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
• if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

According to Section 302 of the Code, whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Judgment and Impact of Sawal Das vs State of Bihar

The Supreme Court in Sawal Das vs State of Bihar, 1974 considered the facts of the case involving the appellant and his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Court found that there was reasonable doubt regarding the applicability of Section 34 IPC in convicting the appellant and the co-accused of murder.

The Court highlighted that the evidence used by the High Court such as the appellant being seen pushing or taking the deceased inside her room where she was last seen alive did not conclusively prove his involvement in the murder. The Court observed the inconsistency in the evidence concerning the cause of death.

The Court stated that while it was clear that this was a case of murder, it could not conclusively determine whether throttling was the cause of death or whether the appellant was solely responsible for the act, as the father and stepmother may have been involved as well.

However, the Court noted that both the trial court and the High Court rightly concluded that the appellant took a leading role in disposing of his wife’s body after the murder. Thus, while his conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside, the Court upheld his conviction under Section 201 IPC for causing the disappearance of evidence.

Thus, the appeal was allowed and the Court imposed rigorous imprisonment of seven years under Section 201 IPC and fine of Rs. 1,000. In case of non-payment of fine, a default sentence of an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Sawal Das vs State of Bihar, 1974 set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC due to reasonable doubt concerning the applicability of Section 34 IPC in establishing the appellant’s guilt for murder. However, the Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant under Section 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The decision in this case shows careful analysis of evidence and the need for conclusive proof in criminal cases.