SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Rakesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others – Respondents 
Cr. MMO No. 989 of 2025
Decided On : 27-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

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 of murder and giving false information attracts Section 201 IPC.

Headnote:(A) IPC - Section 201 - Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender - Ingredients: knowledge or reason to believe offence committed; causing evidence to disappear; intention to screen offender - Accused aware of shooting and death, assisted in parking vehicle containing dead body in lonely place two kms away, returned on foot, misled police by stating injured sent to another hospital - Prima facie constitutes offence even if acting under superior's direction. (Paras 13-19)

(B) CrPC - Sections 227, 239, 240, 245 - Framing charges and discharge - Court examines prosecution material to determine prima facie case or grave suspicion - No mini-trial, defence evaluation, probative value assessment or roving inquiry - Assume prosecution material true, test factual ingredients - If grounds to presume offence committed, frame charge. (Paras 10-12, 20)

(C) IPC Section 201 - False information to police - Giving wrong information during investigation about dead body location prima facie supports offence where combined with evidence concealment. (Para 20)

Facts of the case:
Information received of co-accused shooting labourer at rice mill. Eyewitness stated accused and others tried to rescue deceased; co-accused shot him; accused and co-accused took injured to hospital where declared brought dead. They drove vehicle to lonely place, hid body, returned on foot, falsely informed police injured sent elsewhere, delaying recovery by 30-40 minutes. Charge-sheet filed under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC. Accused sought discharge claiming false implication, rescue attempt, obedience to employer; trial court dismissed, framed charges.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution material discloses prima facie case under Section 201 IPC; no jurisdictional error in framing charges.

Issues: Whether prima facie case under Section 201 IPC made out warranting charge framing despite claims of false implication and employer obedience; scope of judicial scrutiny at discharge stage.

Ratio Decidendi: At charge framing, court sifts evidence for prima facie case or grave suspicion without weighing defence or conducting mini-trial; accused's actions in concealing dead body post-knowledge of offence and misleading police establish ingredients of Section 201 IPC, unaffected by employment status.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. accused assisted concealing murder victim's body post-shooting. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial court rightly rejected discharge for prima facie s.201 case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. parties argued innocence vs. evidence concealment and false information. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. charge framing requires prima facie case without mini-trial or defense probe. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. s.201 ipc needs knowledge, disappearance of evidence, screening intent. (Para 13 , 14)
6. hiding dead body in vehicle prima facie attracts s.201 ipc. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. superior orders, false info not defenses to s.201 offence. (Para 21 , 22)
8. petition dismissed; charges under s.201 properly framed. (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which an application seeking discharge filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court was dismissed. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the police received information on 12.12.2023 at 1:20 a.m. that Sant Prakash co- accused, had shot a labourer. The police went to Sant Rice Mill, where the incident had taken place. They found the blood stains near the rice sheller. HHG Paramjeet was directed to preserve the spot. The police found that the injured was taken to Naya Nangal Hospital for treatment. The police went to Naya Nangal Hospital and the Medical Officer disclosed that the injured was brought dead. Santosh Kumar made a statement that Sant Prakash was beating Ghura (since deceased). Ritesh Kumar, Hira, Ram Lal and and Rakesh Kumar (petitioner/accused) tried to rescue Ghura from Sant Parkash. Sant Parkash shot Ghura. Sant Parkash went to his room and brought the key to the vehicle. Rakesh Kumar and Sant Parkash took the injured to the hospital. The Medical Officer declared Ghura to be brought dead. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police searched for Sant Parkash and Rakesh. The police traced their location with the help of Cyber Cell. Three people were found moving outside R.K. Hospital. One person identified himself as Sant Parkash, who disclosed that the injured person was sent to Chandigarh. Another person identified himself as Rakesh Kumar and did not disclose anything about the injured. Santosh Kumar disclosed that Ghura had died, who was taken somewhere in the vehicle by Sant Parkash and Rakesh Kumar, who had returned to the hospital on foot. The police interrogated Sant Parkash and Rakesh Kumar, who took the police to the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-10B-8896, from where the dead body was recovered. The police investigated the matter. The police found, after investigation that Sant Parkash had shot Ghura and had parked the vehicle containing the dead body in a lonely place at a distance of two kilometres. Rakesh Kumar had assisted Sant Parkash in the concealment of the dead body. Sant Parkash and Raksh Kumar had misled the police for 30-40 minutes. The autopsy report revealed that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to injury to abdominal and thoracic contents caused by firearm injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Hence, the charge sheet was filed before the Court.

3. The accused Rakesh Kumar filed an application for his discharge, asserting that he was falsely implicated. He was employed in the company owned by the co-accused. F.I.R. showed that the accused/petitioner had tried to save Ghura from the co-accused. The accused is not shown to























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top