Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Tek Chand, J.
Chander Giani
Versus
State
Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 1957,
Decided On : JULY 1, 1957
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 201, INDIAN PENAL CODE - REMOVAL OF CORPSE - OFFENCE - INTENTION TO SCREEN OFFENDERS - EVIDENCE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE - CONCEALMENT OF WEAPON - EVIDENCE OF OFFENCE - FOOTPRINTS AT CRIME SCENE - EVIDENCE OF OFFENCE - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - REDUCTION OF SENTENCE FOR YOUNGER ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
Two brothers, Chandar and Pearey, were convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense. The prosecution alleged that they had murdered Teku and removed his body from the village to the Grand Trunk Road to divert suspicion from themselves.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had the intention to screen themselves from legal punishment by removing the body and concealing the evidence of the offense. The court also found that the accused had knowledge and reason to believe that an offense had been committed, as evidenced by the bloodstained dau, the purse belonging to the deceased, and the footprints at the crime scene.
Issues: 1. Whether the removal of the dead body from one place to another constitutes an offense under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether the concealment of a weapon with which an offense is alleged to have been committed constitutes causing evidence of the commission of that offense to disappear.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the removal of the corpse from the village to the Grand Trunk Road was done with the intention of averting suspicion from the accused and was an attempt to screen the real offenders. The court distinguished this case from previous authorities where the mere moving of the body of the victim was held not to amount to causing the disappearance of evidence of the offense. 2. The court held that a weapon stained with human blood affords primary evidence of the offense and not any evidence in the extensive sense. The court preferred the reasoning of Teja Singh J. in Lal Singh v. The Crown, which held that the concealment of a weapon with which an offense is alleged to have been committed is causing evidence of the commission of that offense to disappear.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code but reduced the sentence of the younger accused, Chandar, from seven years to five years rigorous imprisonment.
Tek Chand, J.
1. The appellants are two brothers, Chandar aged 19, and Pearey aged 24, and they have come up in appeal to this Court from their conviction under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge, Rohtak, has sentenced them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment each.
2. The facts of this case are that the two-accused appellants of village Khewra were sent up to stand their trial under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Teku, Brahman of the adjoining village Chauhan Joshi. On the early morning of 8th October, 1956 P.W. 2 Yad Ram of village Rai noticed a dead body wliich had on it injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon lying by the side of the Grand Trunk Road between miles 21 and 22. He reported the matter to the police and the Sub-Inspector recorded Exhibit P. A-, the first information report, and proceeded to the spot where he prepared the injury statement, Exhibit P. S., and the inquest report, Exhibit P. T, and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. As on account of the rains the land where body was bound, was soft, footprints were also-noticed and the police took care to lift them by means of moulds which are Exhibits P. 1 to P. 3. The body had been identified by Yad Ram to be that of Teku. Inquiries during the course of the investigation led the Sub-Inspector on 10th October, to Giani, a chowkidar. The information received from him brought the Sub-Inspector into contact with P.W. 10 Ram Sarup and P.W. 11 Sri Chand.
3. According to Ram Sarup, he was cutting his jowar crop, four or five days previous to his being examined by the Sub-Inspector, when he noticed that Chandar accused along with his brother Santu brought their goafs which trespassed the fields of Teku deceased- Teku abused them and gave slaps to Santu and snatched a dau, which was a sharp-edged instrument, from him and did not return it despite their requests. Ram Sarup P.W. 10 was asked to use his good offices in getting the return of the dau, but Teku despite the requests from Ram Sarup declined to return it as he felt that the flock of the accused had damaged his crop. Some hours later when they were about to-leave for their village, Ram Sarup P.W. 10 stopped for some time with Sri Chand P.W. 11 and his brother Kali Ram in the nearby field where Teku also joined them. The latter did not accompany his three companions, as he wanted to-keep watch for some lime more, lest further damage was done to his crop by the goats of Chandar and his brother. While the three persons named above were returning to their village, they came across Chandar and Pearey accused who told them that they were proceeding to get their dau back from Teku. Two days later P.W. 10 learnt of the death of Teku and told Giani Chow-kidar about having witnessed the quarrel between Chandar and his brother on the one side and Teku on the other. P.W. 11 Sri Chand supported the story given by Ram Sarup in all material particulars.
4. After recording the statements of these witnesses, the Sub-Inspector went in search of the accused, but not finding them in their village he left for the police station. That night, it is slated, Rattan Lal P-W. 3. Duli Chand P.W. 4 and Chct Ram P.W. 5, and Sajjan Pal, who was given up by the prosecution as having been won over but was examined as C.W. 1, were sitting in the chaupal and talking. Accused Chandar and Pearey went there and called out Rattan Lal and told him that they had murdered Teku on account of a quarrel with him over his snatching of dau and refusing to return it. They also told them that after having done him to death, they threw the corpse on the Grand Trunk Road. Alter hearing the story, P.W. Rattan Lal, took them to his other three companions named above, and before them the two accused confessed their crime. The next morning the Sub-Inspector went to the village and Rattan Lai produced the two accused before him.
5. On interrogation, Chandar accused told the police that he had ke
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
