Penal Code, 1860:
s.201 – Whether conviction under s.201 could be maintained while acquitting the accused of main offence – Held: A charge under s.201 can be independently laid and conviction maintained also, in case the prosecution is able to establish that an offence had been committed, the person charged with the offence had the knowledge or the reason to believe that the offence had been committed, the said person has caused disappearance of evidence and such act of disappearance has been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment – Mere suspicion is not sufficient, it must be proved that the accused knew or had a reason to believe that the offence has been committed and yet he caused the evidence to disappear so as to screen the offender.
s.201 – Unnatural death – Prosecution case was that the wife of the accused committed suicide by hanging – Last rites attended by father and brother of the deceased – After four months the father of the deceased initiated criminal proceedings against accused under various sections including s.498A and s.201 – Trial court convicted the accused under s.498A and s.201, however, High Court set aside conviction under s.498A while maintaining conviction under s.201 on the ground that appellant did not give intimation to the police of the unnatural death and that no post mortem was conducted – On appeal, held: Neither the trial court nor the High Court had any case that there was any intentional omission to give information by the appellant to the police under s.202 against the appellant – Mere fact that deceased allegedly died an unnatural death could not be sufficient to bring home a charge under s.201 – Unless prosecution was able to establish that accused knew or had reason to believe that an offence has been committed and had done something causing the offence of commission of evidence to disappear he cannot be convicted – There was no such allegation against the appellant – The last rites of the deceased were performed in the presence of the members of her family – They had no suspicion at that time of the commission of any offence – The private complaint was lodged after more than three months – It was also not the case of the complainant that he had requested for post-mortem of the body and that intimation should have been given to the police before the last rites were performed – In the facts and circumstances, the conviction of the appellant under s.201 was not maintainable. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court is not justified in maintaining the conviction under Section 201 only on the ground that no communication was given to the police and that the post-mortem had not been performed. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the father of the deceased and her brother (who is a doctor) had attended the last rites of the deceased and neither of them had any complaint or suspicion at that time of the commission of any offence. The Sessions Court has also taken note of the suicide note left by the deceased wherein she had taken the entire blame on herself. Yet the court has taken the view, from the consideration we have extracted from paragraph-16 of the Sessions court judgment, that the deceased might have been in a state of depression having remained alone for most of the time and it amounted to torture. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 498A by the High Court, and rightly so. The prosecution has also not been able to satisfy the ingredients under Section 201 of the IPC. Neither the Sessions Court nor the High Court has any case that there is any intentional omission to give information by the appellant to the police. It is also to be noted that prosecution has no case under Section 202 of the IPC against the appellant. [Para 20] [651-B-E]
2. There is no such allegation against the appellant. The last rites of the deceased were performed in the presence of the members of her family. They had no suspicion at that time of the commission of any offence. The private complaint was lodged after more than three months. There is no charge under Section
202 of the IPC of intentionally omitting to give information of the unnatural death to the police. It is also not the case of the complainant that he had requested for post-mortem of the body and that intimation should have been given to the police before the last rites were performed. In the above facts and circumstances, the Sessions Court is not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 201 of the IPC and the High Court maintaining the same. [Paras 22, 23] [651-G-H; 652-A-B]
Hanuman and others v. State of Rajasthan (1994) Supp
2 SCC 39; Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 354 : [1952] SCR 94; Suleman Rehiman Mulani and another v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC
829 : [1968] SCR 515; Ram Saran Mahto and another v. State of Bihar (1999) 9 SCC 486 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 250; V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala (2001) 3 SCC
549 : [2001] 1 SCR 973; Sukhram v. State of
Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 502 : [2007] 9 SCR 44; Sou Vijaya @ Baby v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 8 SCC 296 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 340; State of Karnataka v. Madesha (2007) 7 SCC 35 : [2007] 8 SCR 757; Hanuman and others v. State of Rajasthan (1994) Suppl.
2 SCC 39 – relied on.
Smt. Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 131 : [1953] SCR 546 –
distinguished.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.