Statements made to the police during investigation cannot be the basis of prosecution under S.182, S.201, or S.203 IPC.

1. This appeal has been filed by the State challenging the legality of the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mavelikara in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1958. The accused one Dr. Markose was charged for giving false information to the police, offence punishable under S.201 and 203 read with S.114 IPC.

2. The case against the accused was that with the intention of screening his son Sunny from punishment for the offence of murder, be gave false information to the police in respect of the occurrence and instigated his servants Pws. 2 and 5 likewise to give false information in a manner calculated to induce the police to believe that Sunny's wife Ammal, committed suicide by shooting herself and that it was not a case of murder.

3. Ext. P30 is the case diary statement of the accused taken by Pw.16 the Circle Inspector of Police & Ext. P37 is the statement given by the accused before the Deputy Superintendent of Police Pw.17. The two main things stated by the accused in these statements were that he saw Ammal going into the car shed and that he immediately heard a gun shot; and secondly that he went to the car shed and found the revolver lying by her side and removed it. According to the prosecution the accused had deliberately suppressed the fact that the deceased had only followed Sunny into the car shed and that after the gun was fired the accused removed the revolver from Sunny's hands. The charge under S.203 is for instigating Pws. 2 and 5 to give similar statements Exts. P31 and P32 to the Circle Inspector of Police.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case came to the conclusion that Sunny did shoot and cause the death of Ammal and thereby committed the offence of murder He has also found that the accused had known that murder was committed by his son and gave a false version of the occurrence when questioned by the police and induced Pws. 2 & 5, his servants, to do so and that it was done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. These findings have not been seriously challenged in appeal. The learned judge acquitted the accused, because in his opinion, statements - given by a person in the course of an investigation by the police cannot amount to an offence under S.201 & 203 IPC., as these sections contemplate "information" which is "volunteered", information that falls under S.154 Cr. P.C. It is the correctness of this view that is canvassed in this appeal by the State. The case was referred to a Bench by one of us as the question that arises for decision is one of considerable importance and there is no unanimity of judicial opinion.

5. S.201 & 203 IPC., contemplate giving information respecting an offence which the accused person knows or believes to be false. For the offence under S.201, IPC., the false information should also be furnished with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Unlike S.182 of the Penal. Code which deals with giving false information to any public servant, S.201 & 203 do not refer to whom false information should be given; it would take in private persons as well as public servants, including the police. This position is not disputed. It is also not disputed that if any person gives the first information statement to the police which is recorded under S.154 Cr. P.C., and if it ultimately turns out to be false it would amount to giving false information and the offender would be punishable under S.201 IPC., provided the requisite intention is proved.

6. In the case in Sm. Kalawati v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR. 1953 SC. 131), the accused Kalawati made a statement to the Head-constable that some unknown dacoits had invaded her house, killed her husband and robbed her of her jewels. This statement which was treated as first information statement was found on investigation to be false and it was proved that she knowingly gave the false information to screen the real offender who was her paramour. S