The need for cogent evidence to prove the accused's intention to screen the offender from legal punishment in cases of conviction under Section 201 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment dated 11.1.2011 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.7/2010, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and further directed to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that between 23.9.2009 to 24.9.2009, all three accused namely present appellant, co-accused Banwari and Panchuram (now acquitted) crushed the head of deceased Umend Ram with the help of stone and thereby murdered him and in order to screen themselves, they have thrown the dead body of deceased Umend Ram beneath the bridge in floating stream and thereby committed the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur by its impugned judgment convicted appellant-Banwari @ Banwasi Patel for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and his appeal being Criminal Appeal No.423/2012 has been disposed off today by separate order as having been abated. However, the present appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 201 of the IPC by recording a finding in paras 39 and 42 as under:

^^39- Á-ih-17 vkjksih cuokjh ds eseksjs.Me dFku ds vuqlkj e`rd vesan jke dh e`R;q vkjksih cuokjh ds }kjk gh /kqek ds xks[kus ukyk iqfy;k ds ikl iRFkj ls e`rd ds flj dks ekjdj rFkk iRFkj ls flj dks dqpydj gR;k fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlds i'pkr~ vkjksih iapwiky rFkk uudh iVsy dks ?kVuk dh tkudkjh nsdj muds lkFk e`rd dh yk'k dks iqfy;k ds uhps ukyk esa Qsadk x;k gS A vkjksih iapwiky vkSj uudh iVsy ds eseksjs.Me dFku Á-ih-18 ,oa ih-19 ls Hkh vkjksih cuokjh }kjk e`rd mesanjke dh gR;k dj fn;s tkus dh tkudkjh fn;s tkus ij ?kVuk LFky ij vkdj vkjksih cuokjh ds lkFk feydj e`rd ds 'ko dks iqfy;k ds uhps Qsadus es enn fd;k x;k gSA

42- vkjksih uudh iVsy ds fo#)] e`rd mesan jke dh] vkjksih cuokjh ds lkFk feydj lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj.k esa e`rd mesan jke dh gR;k djus dk rF; Áekf.kr ugha ik;k x;k ysfdu vkjksih cuokjh ds lkFk feydj] e`rd mesan jke dk 'ko] ukyk fdukjs Qsad dj lk{; dk foyksi djus dk vijk/k vkjksih uudh iVsy ds fo#) Áekf.kr ikrs gq,] vkjksih uudh iVsy dks /kkjk 302@34 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/k ls nks"keqDr djrs gq,] /kkjk 201@34 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/k ds fy, mls fl)nks"k Bgjk;k tkrk gSA**

3. Mr.Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that taking the finding recorded by the trial Court in paras 39 and 42 of the impugned judgment as it is, the only allegation against the present appellant is that he has assisted co-accused Banwari @ Banwasi in throwing the dead body of Umend Ram beneath the bridge in steam. He would further submit that no finding has been recorded by the trial Court that the appellant charged with the offence under Section 201 of the IPC had the knowledge or reason to believe that offence under Section 302 of the IPC has been committed and the act has been done with intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he had given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false and merely on the basis that corpse of deceased Umend Ram has been thrown beneath the bridge in floating stream, he has been convicted. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant are liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Arijit Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, would submit that ingredients of Section 201 of the IPC have been satisfied and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with u