Important Points
1. To justify conviction for an offence u/s 201 IPC it is imperative that prosecution should establish two premises. First is that an offence has been committed and second is that the accused knew about it or he had reasons to believe the commission of that offence.
2. To attract maximum sentence of imprisonment for seven years u/s 201 IPC minimum requirement for the offence to reach the said peak degree is that the offender should have caused disappearance of evidence of another offence which is punishable with death.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 201-Causing disappearance of evidence-Conditions precedent for conviction-Condition precedent to award maximum punishment-To bring home offence under Section 211 accused should have had knowledge of or reason to believe commission of offence and should have caused disappearance of evidence of commission of that offence-Above basic ingredients must be established-Accused persons were charged under Section 302/201-Trial Court held offence under Section 302 not established but convicted accused under Section 201 and awarded imprisonment of seven years-Not tenable-Conviction set aside.
       Held : The first paragraph of Section 211 contains the postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining three paragraphs prescribe three different tiers of punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each situation. The two indispensable ingredients for all the three tiers in Section 201 are: (1) The accused should have had the knowledge that an offence has been committed or at least that he should have had reasons to believe it. (2) He should then have caused disappearance of evidence of commission of that offence. Prosecution cannot escape from establishing the aforesaid two basic ingredients, for conviction of the accused under Section 201. (Para 9)
       The gravest degree contemplated in Section 201 is punishable with the maximum sentence of imprisonment for seven years. The minimum requirement for the offence to reach the said peak degree is that the offender should have caused disappearance of evidence of another offence which is punishable with death, and that should be established in addition to the above-mentioned two basic ingredients. Even if the two basics are established, and the prosecution failed to establish the next requirement the court cannot convict the accused for the highest tier specified in the section. (Para 10)
       It is not necessary that the offender himself should have been found guilty of the main offence for the purpose of convicting him of offence under Section 201. Nor is it absolutely necessary that somebody else should have been found guilty of the main offence. Nonetheless, it is imperative that prosecution should have established two premises. First is that an offence has been committed and second is that the accused knew about it or he had reasons to believe the commission of that offence. Then and then alone the prosecution can succeed, provided the remaining postulates of the offence are also established. (Para 11)
       In the instant case the corpse of a teenaged dame was recovered from a well settled to her nuptial home. That corpse was consigned to flames without loss of time. For that incident her husband Kalpu Mahto and three others stand convicted of the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code; Though the prosecution did not even venture to establish any other offence in respect of the death of that young lady, the trial court passed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years on one of the convicted persons while a sentence of RI for three years was imposed on the remaining convicted. (Para 2)
       Held, that the prosecution could establish was that dead body of Asha Kumari was recovered from the well situated in the compound of her marital home and that the cremation was hurried through after physically keeping her kith and kin away from the scene. No doubt, such a culpable hurry enkindles fumes of suspicion which can be regarded as an incriminating circumstance against those who showed such a haste. But that circumstance stands isolated and unconcatenated with any other circumstance. Prosecution has not even attempted to show, much less prove, that any offence has been committed by any one in respect of the death of Asha Kumari, which should have been the foundation for establishing the offence under Section 201 IPC. It now stands as an unfounded conviction and hence we have to interfere. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants. (Paras 15 & 16)

Judgment

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. The corpse of a teenaged dame was recovered from a well settled to her nuptial home. That corpse was consigned to flames without loss of time. For that incident her husband Kalpu Mahto and three others stand convicted of the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code; Though the prosecution did not even venture to establish any other offence in respect of the death of that young lady, the trial court passed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years on one of the convicted persons while a sentence of RI for three years was imposed on the remaining convicted persons. They appealed to the High Court of Patna, but failed.

3. We cannot comprehend how the Sessions Court could have escalated the conviction to the topmost layer of the offence for awarding the maximum sentence of imprisonment for seven years as the said upper limit is fixed only for one category of cases falling under Section 201 IPC. The Sessions Judge did not even advert to the possibility of the offence falling within the aforesaid top category though he had chosen to award the maximum sentence only to one of the four convicted persons. Learned Single of the Patna High Court while restating the sentence portion in his judgment seems to have committed an error in the following manner:

“By the judgment and order the learned trial court convicted the 4 appellants under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 7 years each.”

The aforesaid error in the restatement would have escaped the notice of the learned Single Judge, but we mention it here for averting any possible consequences on its account.

4. Facts of the case are these: Deceased Asha Kumari was aged only 18 when she died. She was given in marriage to Kalpu Mahto (A-2). While she was living in her husband’s house, A-3-Ram Saran Mahto (a cousin of her husband) dashed-down to her parental house during the wee hours of 11.6.1986 and conveyed the disquieting information that Asha Kumari was missing from the house. Immediately her brother Ram Balak Mahto (P.W. 3) rushed to the marital home of Asha Kumari on a bicycle, followed by his father (P.W. 1) on foot.

5. P.W. 3 Ram Balak Mahto could reach the house earlier as he was on a two-wheeler. In his presence A-3 Ram Saran Mahto suggested that the well of the house should be searched. When a search was made pursuant thereto the dead body of Asha Kumari was spotted out and later that was winched out of the well. Thus far the story seems to be, by and large, undisputed.

6. Thereafter, Asha Kumari’s husband Kalpu Mahto and some other persons, who were closely related to him, showed impatience to have the obsequies of the departed soul. P.W. 3 only wanted the cremation to the postponed till the arrival of his father but that suggestion was spurned down. An altercation would have followed and a wrangle was ensued therefrom. P.W. 3 was trussed up and his cycle was snatched away. When P.W. 1 father of Asha Kumari arrived at the place he too was fastened with a tether. Dead body of Asha Kumari was then removed to the nearby orchard where it was set ablaze and cremated.

7. P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 went to the police station and lodged a complaint. After investigation the police charge-sheeted 13 persons, including the appellants, for various offences such as Section 302 read with Sections 34, 201, 342 and 379 of the Penal Code. The trial court came to the undisputed conclusion that “prosecution has failed to prove the charge of commission of murder”. Nevertheless, learned Sessions Judge proceeded to award the sentence under Section 201 of the Penal Code and the only discussion he made for that purpose was on the question whether any one other than the four appellants had committed that offence. After holding that none among them, except the four appellants, can be convicted, learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict all the four appellants without even resorting to a one sentence discussion on the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 984

Cases Referred (3)