An accused can be convicted under S.201 of the IPC for concealing evidence, even if the charge of the main offence (murder) is not established, as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the charge of concealing evidence.

1. Crl.A.128 of 1985 is filed by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence under S.201 of the IPC. and Crl. A. 101 of 1986 is filed by the State on the ground that the proper conviction and sentence ought to have been under S.302 of the IPC.

2. The accused stood charged under S.302 and 201 of the IPC. Accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife Kochaisha and daughter Safiyath in the night of 6-12-1982 and concealed the corpses by dumping them in a well close to his house. The prosecution case is that accused and his relatives used to abuse and scold Kochaisha almost everyday, that in the eventful night the accused killed his wife by strangulating her, that he had also killed Safiyath by smothering her and that the dead bodies were stealthily removed and thrown into a neighbouring well. The dead. bodies were taken out of the well and were removed to the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for postmortem examination. Though the first information statement was registered as unnatural death, investigation by Pw.19 revealed it to be a case of homicide and accordingly a report was sent for altering the Section of offence as 302 of the IPC.

3. It was Pw.11, a labourer who along with Bapputty as directed by the police took out the bodies of Kochaisha and Safiyath from the well. He stated that he saw a knot around the neck of Kochaisha with a saree. Pw.12 who conducted autopsy on the body of Kochaisha stated that M.O.1 saree was found around her neck. pw.12 stated that cut sections of the lungs showed congestion and exuded frothy fluid and air passages showed froth.' According to him, the death was due to ligature strangulation. Ext. P-7 postmortem certificate and pw.12's evidence would show that Kochaisha died of ligature strangulation. Injury number one is a symptom of ligature strangulation. The doctor deposed that it was sufficient to cause death in the normal course. pw,12 stated that injury Nos. 2 and 3 can be caused at the time of struggle by coming into contact with a smooth substance and that injury Nos. 4 to 7 can be caused if the deceased struggled at the time of strangulation and came into contact with bard substance. He further stated that the palms and soles indicated that the body was not in the water for a long period Evidence of pw.12 conclusively proves that Kochaisha died of ligature strangulation. The defence version that it was a case of suicide can be firmly ruled out in view of the evidence of pw.12 that be did not find any symptom of drowning.

4. pw.13 conducted autopsy on the body of Safiyath and issued Ext. P-8 postmortem certificate. He found a pressure abrasion 0.6 x 0.2 cros. horizontally placed on the right side of nose 1.5 cros. above its tip and superficial lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.2 cros. vertically placed on the outer aspect of the middle of lower lip. The trachea and bronchi contained blood tinged frothy fluid. Both lungs were congested and oedematous. pw.13 stated that the death was on account of smothering. His evidence would also show that there was no water inside the body suggestive of drowning. According to him, the injuries could be caused if the assailant used force with hands on that part of the body of the deceased.

5. The evidence of Pws.12 and 13 conclusively established that Kochaisha died due to ligature strangulation and Safiyath died due to smothering. On going through the evidence we bold that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding that death of Kochaisha and Safiyath was not at all on account of suicide as suggested by the defence but it was really a case of homicide.

6. It has next to be considered as to whether the accused was responsible for accusing the death of his wife and daughter. The prosecution has not established any immediate motive for the accused to perpetrate the double murder. There is no evidence that on that fateful day the accused quarrelled with his wife and it is not clear what motivated him to kill her and h