important points
Section 201 punishes any person, who knowingly destroys the evidence of an offence of which he was aware or gives false information in order to screen the offender from legal punishment.
If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—

1.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court directing acquittal of the respondents.

2.In this appeal, a notice limited to applicability of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) was issued by this Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that Section 201 IPC can only be applied to situations wherein an offence has taken place and the accused did some act towards screening the offenders and more importantly destroying or tampering with the evidence. When no offence was established to have been committed, Section 201 will not be applicable.

3.This Court had occasion to deal with such plea. In V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala,1 (2001 (3) SCC 549) it was noted as follows :

“9.The issue thus pertains to the maintainability of conviction and sentence under Section 201. The law on this score is well settled since the decision in Kalwati case wherein Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J, speaking for the Bench observed:

“21.But there can scarcely be any doubt that she must have witnessed the murder of her husband lying next to her on a charpai. Shibbi who was at a distance of 18 feet was roused by the sound of a sword attack. Kalawati must have woken up also at least during the course of the assault if not at its commencement, several injuries having been inflicted in succession. When Shibbi woke up, Kalawati’s bed was empty, and she was found in a room nearby and not at the place of occurrence. She trotted out an elaborate story of dacoity, which cannot be accepted as true. Even if, in terror she ran away from her bed and stood at a distance, she is almost sure to have known who was the offender, unless he had his face muffled. The first version she gave to the police head constable when he appeared on the scene immediately after the occurrence is, we think, false, and we are of opinion that she knew or believed it to be false. The borderline between abetment of the offence and giving false information to screen the offender is rather thin in her case, but it is prudent to err on the safe side, and hold her guilty only of an offence under Section 201 Penal Code, as the learned Sessions Judge did.”

xxx xxx xxx

11.Section 201 IPC reads as below :

“201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender- 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 information 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) and 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.”

12.Having regard to the language used, the following ingredients emerge:

(i)commission of an offence;

(ii)person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed;

(iii)person charged with the offence under Section 201 1PC should have caused disappearance of evidence or should have given false information regarding t