Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 389
2006(4) Supreme 75
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Budhan Singh and Ors.—Appellants
versus
State of Bihar—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1221 of 1998
Decided on 25-4-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Rakesh Taneja, K.L. Taneja Advocates.
For the Respondent : Rituraj Biswas, Gopal Singh, Advocates.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 201/34—Informant PW2 with PWs 3 and 9 while returning from Mela had altercation with accused of 1st incident were armed with fire-arms—Deceased, brother of informant and other villagers rushed—Four accused fired shots which hit deceased—Accused fled away and deceased was brought on a cot to village—Accused persons snatched away deceased along with cot at point of fire arm—Dead body of deceased was recovered from open field about 750 yards away from place it was taken away forcibly—Appellants were convicted u/s 201 IPC and were sentenced to five years imprisonment—High Court upheld conviction but reduced sentence to 2 years — Appeal — Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender—Whether deceased was dead or not at that point of time was of not much importance—Question was whether appellant had requisite knowledge of commission of offence or had reason to believe that offence was committed—Evidence to show that they had requisite knowledge about commission of offence—Concurrent finding of fact by both Courts and no case was made out of interference—All appellants were aged more than 70 years and that they were not connected with first part of occurrence, interest of justice to be met if their sentence was reduced to period undergone.
Held : The ingredients of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code are as under:
(1)that an offence has been committed;
(2)that the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such offence;
(3)that with such knowledge or belief he–
(a)caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, or
(b)gave any information respecting that offence which he then knew or believed to be false;
(4)that he did as aforesaid, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment;
(5)if the charge be of an aggravated form, as in the present case, it must be proved further that the offence in respect of which the accused did as in (3) and (4) was punishable with death, or with imprisonment for life or imprisonment extending to ten years.
It is not in dispute that the deceased Mister Mian had been injured. Whether he was dead at that point of time or not is of not much importance inasmuch when the second incident took place an offence had already been committed.(Para 18 and 19)
From the conspectus of events, as noticed hereinbefore, and the manner in which the Appellants are said to have taken part in the commission of crime, there cannot be any doubt that they had the requisite knowledge about the commission of an offence. The very fact that an injured person was being carried out to the hospital in a cot and the Appellants not only assisted the main accused persons in snatching away the cot, two of them carried the cot themselves and two others were armed with firearms clearly establishes their knowledge about commission or the likelihood of offence.(Para 28)
It is, however, not in dispute that all the Appellants before us are aged more than 70 years. Rajendra Singh had been in custody for about five months. Surendra Singh is said to have been in custody for about three months fifteen days. Jagdish Singh was in custody about seven months whereas Arjun Singh was in custody for about four months. Having regard to the fact that all the Appellants before us are above 70 years of age and furthermore in view of the fact that as they were not connected with the first part of the occurrence, in our considered view, interest of justice would be subserved if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.(Para 37)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—The Appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna dated 24.2.1988 affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29th November, 1986 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, IV, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 401 of 1981.
2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
3. A First Information Report was lodged by one Md. Saudagar on 14.1.1979 at about 9 p.m. in regard to an incident which is said to have taken place at about 7 p.m. on the same day, alleging that when he along with his co-villagers Syeduddin Nut (PW-2), Alauddin Nut (PW-3), Deo Nath Paswan (PW-9) and Lakhan Paswan (since deceased), were returning from Rajghat Mela, the accused Devi Dayal Singh, Mathura Singh, Sarjug Singh and Chuta Singh met them at the Alang in Adpakhanda whereupon Syeduddin asked the accused as regard their identity to which one of them replied that he was his father. Altercations and abuses thereafter followed. Devi Dayal Singh and Sarjug Singh were said to be having countrymade pistols with them. Chuta Singh, subsequently named as Chandrika Singh, allegedly had a rifle with him and Mathura Singh had a double barrel gun. They threatened to shoot the informant and his companions whereafter they ran towards their village Neora raising alarm Chor-Chor. On hearing such alarm, Mister Mian (deceased), brother of the informant and several other villagers rushed whereupon Devi Dayal Singh allegedly ordered to fire shots pursuant whereto four persons were said to have fired shots which hit the deceased Mister Mian. He fell on the agricultural field belonging to one Jalandhar Singh.
4. The accused persons thereafter were said to have fled away. The deceased was brought on a cot to the village by Deo Nath Paswan (PW-9), Md. Amanullah (PW-8), Jakiuddin (PW-7), Alauddin Nut (PW-3), Amiruddin (PW-10) and others at about 8 p.m. The accused persons snatched away the deceased Mister Mian along with the cot at the point of firearms whereupon people from village Shahpur including Mithila Sharan Singh (PW-1) arrived. An information is said to have been sent to the police station by telephone from a nearby Christian Mission at about 8.15 p.m. The dead body of Mister Mian was recovered from an open field situated about 750 yards away from the place wherefrom he had allegedly been taken away forcibly.
5. The learned Sessions Judge by reason of his judgment dated 29th November, 1986 convicted Devi Dayal Singh, Mathura Singh and Sarjug Singh for commission of an offence under Sections 302/34, 120B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Chandrika Singh, however, was acquitted. The Appellants – Rajendra Singh, Surendra Singh, Jagdish Singh, Arjun Singh along with Ram Yad Singh, Bikku Singh and Budhan Singh were, however, convicted only under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment.
6. On an appeal preferred by the Appellants thereagainst, whereas the conviction of all the accused persons were confirmed, the High Court reduced the sentence from five years to two years in respect of those who were found to be guilty only under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the accused persons, Budhan Singh, is said to have died. He is not an Appellant before us. This Court dismissed the special leave petition of Devi Dayal Singh, Sarjug Singh and Mathura Singh by an order dated 9.11.1998.
7. Before the learned Trial Judge, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined 12 witnesses whereas the defence examined 8 witnesses on its behalf.
8. Mr. Rakesh Taneja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants would submit that the learned Trial Court as also the High Court committed a serious error in holding the Appellants guilty of commission of an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code particularly in view of the fact that they had not been charged un
