The main legal point established in the judgment is that to convict a person under S. 201 of the I.P.C., it is essential to prove the commission of the main offence and the accused's intention to screen the offender from legal punishment.

THOMAS, J.

Deceased Vincent was a young advocate whose practice was mainly in the District Centre, Ernakulam. His death was suspected to be a murder. After investigation his wife was indicted for the murder and also for giving false information regarding the incident in order to screen herself from legal punishment. The Sessions Court acquitted her of murder charge, but convicted her for the offence under S. 201 of the Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. She filed the appeal challenging the convict on and sentence.

2. When the appeal was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court, it was contended for the appellant that the offence under S. 201 of the I.P.C. cannot be found without establishment of the main offence. The State has not filed any appeal against acquittal for the main offence. However, revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been initiated by the learned single Judge against the order of acquittal. We heard arguments in the appeal and also in the suo motu revision. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the order of acquittal is wrong and he canvassed for conviction of the appellant for the offence under S. 302 of the I.P.C. For the sake of convenience, the appellant will be referred to as the accused.

3. Deceased was one of the four children of P.W. 1. Deceased and his wife along with their six year old daughter Tesvy were residing in another house at Vennala near Palarivattam in Ernakulam. It appears that the deceased incurred debts. He wanted to dispose of the land and building (in which they resided) which stood in the name of his wife. He succeeded in getting a buyer for those items. Prosecution case is that the proposed sale was to the chagrin of his wife. On the date of occurrence, the deceased, after consuming liquor, returned home in the night and informed his wife that the agreement for sale was to be executed on the following day. There was a hubbub over this dispute between the husband and wife. She inflicted a beat on the forehead of the deceased with a crowbar (M.O. 1). The resultant injury involving his skull and brain brought about his death almost instantaneously. But the accused made it out to all those who reached the house that he committed suicide by hanging. Without knowing the real cause of death, father of the deceased (P.W. 1) gave first information statement to the police. The FIR was registered by the police for unnatural death but when the body was subjected to autopsy the police sensed that it was a case of murder. Accused was arrested and after interrogation the investigating officer came to know that the crowbar was concealed beneath firewood splinters stacked in the kitchen. When the crowbar was subjected to chemical analysis in the Forensic Laboratory, it was revealed that it was stained with human blood of the same group as that of the deceased.

4. When Sessions Judge examined the accused with reference to the incriminating circumstances against her, she denied her complicity and gave a lengthy and detailed narration which included a brief sketch of her life with the deceased. According to her, she was hot against sale of the property and all that she insisted on was that the sale proceeds should be deposited in her name, but as the said suggestion was not acceptable to the deceased, he started pestering and harassing her. According to the accused, her husband tried to commit suicide on an iron beam above the wash basin in the work area. When she caught hold of his legs to save him, he fell down as the knot got united and his forehead hit on the hard place and he sustained the fatal injury. She told all those who came to the house of what happened. This is in substance what she has stated in Court.

5. Learned Sessions Judge did not believe the prosecution story that it was the accused who committed the murder. Nor did the Sessions Judge accept accused's version regarding deceased's death. He was of the view that death was no