( 1 ) THE extra Additional Sessions Judge Surat acquitted the appellant of the charge of having murdered Bai Jamli but he convicted him under section 201 for having caused the evidence of her murder to disappear with the requisite intention and with the requisite knowledge.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that after the appellant was arrested he made a statement before the police and panchas that he would discover a scythe and blood-stained clothes which had been concealed in certain fields. According to the prosecution the scythe was the weapon used for the commission of the offence and the clothes were those of the accused. In view of this evidence the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 201 I. P. C. although he had acquitted him under section 302 I. P. C. on the charge of having caused the murder of Bai Jamli.

( 3 ) IN our opinion the appeal must be allowed and the conviction must be set aside for the following reasons :the prosecution case is that the appellant had caused the scythe and blood-stained clothes belonging to the appellant to disappear. Section 201 I. P. C. speaks of a person who causes any evidence of the commission of an offen