Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, JJ.
Jagarnath S/o Karmuram Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 151 of 2014
Decided On : 10-10-2023
Section 201/34 of IPC - Disappearance of evidence of offence - [201] - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender. The court highlighted the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 201 and referred to relevant case laws such as Sukhram vs. State of Maharashtra, Nagendra Nath Bhakta vs. Emperor, Duvvur Dasratharammareddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel vs. State of Gujarat to interpret the legal provisions and their application in the present case. The court emphasized that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused, and mere suspicion is not sufficient to establish the offence under Section 201. The court also considered the circumstances under which the charge for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC can be laid and conviction can be maintained. The court ultimately set aside the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 201/34 of IPC based on the findings and interpretations of the legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appellants being convicted for the offence under Section 201/34 of IPC for causing disappearance of evidence of an offence and giving false information to screen an offender. The prosecution's case was that the appellants, along with co-accused, assaulted the deceased and concealed the evidence by throwing the dead body at another location. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the prosecution's evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 201/34 of IPC could not be sustained in light of the acquittal of the co-accused for the main offence under Section 302 of IPC. The court emphasized the lack of evidence to establish the appellants' knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence had been committed and their intention to screen the offender from legal punishment. Therefore, the court set aside the conviction of the appellants for the said charges and acquitted them.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the interpretation and application of Section 201 of IPC, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 201, and the circumstances under which the charge for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC can be laid and conviction can be maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 201 of IPC and relevant case laws, emphasizing the need for establishing the accused's knowledge or reason to believe that the offence had been committed and their intention to screen the offender from legal punishment. The court highlighted that mere suspicion is not sufficient to establish the offence under Section 201 and laid down the circumstances under which the charge for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC can be laid and conviction can be maintained.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 201/34 of IPC and acquitted them. The appellants were not required to surrender, but their bail-bonds remained in operation for a period of six months.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 91/2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raigarh Chhattisgarh by which the appellants stands convicted & sentenced as under:
| Conviction | Sentence | Default Stipulation |
| U/s 201/34 of IPC | RI for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- | In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 3 months |
2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 22.06.2010, at about 06:30 pm at Village: Kiriya Dhamnadand, the co-accused Dhansai Ekka assaulted Manuel @ Gurda Tigga by hand & fist and by stone by which he suffered grievous injury and in order to conceal the evidence, the co-accused Dhansai Ekka with the help of present appellants, thrown the dead body of the deceased at Katomara Hill and thereby concealed the evidence. Dhansai Ekka has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment by the Trial Court separately which is the subject matter of CRA No. 154 of 2016. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.06.2010 at 7-8 pm, the appellants along with other co-accused Dhansai Ekka and the deceased consumed liquor and thereafter a dispute arose between the deceased and co-accused Dhansai Ekka, and he assaulted the deceased Manuel @ Gurda Tigga by hand and fist and also with stone, by which he suffered grievous injuries and died, in order to save themselves from the aforesaid offence, they thrown the dead body of the deceased at Katomara Hill in order to conceal the evidence. Thereafter, on 26.06.2010, a missing report was lodged by son of the deceased Rameshwar Tigga (PW-2) vide Ex.P/20 in Police Chowki Rairmakhurd, Police Station: Dharamjaigarh and the dead body was recovered on 28.06.2010 at 08:30 pm in decomposed condition, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation Ex.P/19 and Ex.P/24 was registered and thereafter, the inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/14 and 9. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. B.L. Bhagat (PW-6), who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P/19, in which cause of death was stated to be due to head injury and death was homicidal in nature.
3. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After due investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellants/accused abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the offence.
4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. The appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness but exhibited 1 document i.e. Ex.D/1, statements of Rameshwar Tigga (PW-2).
5. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence and sentenced as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the present appeal has been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offence under Section 201/34 of IPC as by judgment delivered today in CRA No. 154 of 2016 (Dhansai Ekka vs. State of Chhattisgarh), the appellant-Dhansai Ekka has been acquitted and the main offence under Section 302 of IPC has not been found proved against co-accused Dhansai, therefore, the conviction of the present appellants for offence under Section 201/34 of IPC is liable to be set aside and they may be acquitted of the charge.
7. Learned counsel for the State supports the
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.
At charge framing stage, prima facie case or grave suspicion from prosecution material suffices for charges without mini-trial or defence weighing; assisting concealment of dead body with knowledge o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to connect the accused's conduct with the crime committed and the need for such conduct to form part of the evidence. Additionally,....
Intent to screen the offender must be proven for conviction under Section 201 IPC.
The prosecution's failure to establish the fundamental elements of kidnapping and ransom resulted in the High Court overturning the convictions due to lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
Reliance can be based on solitary statement of a witness if court comes to conclusion that said statement is true and correct version of case of prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of clear evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases of criminal conspiracy.
The main legal point established is the requirement for corroborative evidence to establish guilt, the limitations of the memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the inadmissib....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
