Mere presence at the scene of a crime and failure to extinguish a fire are not sufficient to convict a person under Section 201 of the Penal Code.

Faizan Uddin, J.

1. In this appeal the appellant Kumari Omli has challenged her conviction under Section 201 of Penal Code for which she has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year, in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1985, decided on 5th September, 1989, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur).

2. Deceased Saroj was the wife of the co-accused Omprakash whose burnt dead body was found on 1.6.1985 in the latrine of the co-accused Sagarmal, the father-in-law of the deceased. Mst. Saroj was married to Omprakash in May, 1984. According to the prosecution, she was always ill-treated by her husband, Omprakash and his family members for bringing inadequate and insufficient dowry and it is alleged that for this reason, all the family members strangulated her to death on 1.6.1985 and later, after putting her dead body in the latrine of the house, set fire to the dead body with a view to give an impression that she had committed suicide. Her husband Omprakash made a report in the Police Station, Ambikapur that she had committed suicide. During investigation, several incriminating articles were seized.

3. Dr. P.K. Shrivastava (P.W. 11) along with Dr. Phadnis performed the autopsy over her dead body in the Government hospital, Ambikapur, who as per Post-mortem Report (Ex.P-16), found that Saroj had suffered 90 per cent burn injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia.

4. The appellant along with her brothers, Omprahash and Suresh Kumar and her parents, Sagarmal and Jankibai besides some other family members, was charged and tried for offences under Sections 302, 302/34, 201 and 498A of the Penal Code. The learned trial Judge convicted Omprakash the husband of the deceased Saroj under Sections 302, 201 and 498A while Mst. Janki, mother-in-law of the deceased and one Santosh were convicted under Sections 201 and 498A while Sagarmal, father-in-law of the deceased, was convicted under Section 498A and Suresh, elder brother of Omprakash and his sister, Kumari Omli, the appellant herein, were convicted under Section 201 only and sentenced as said above. This appeal has been filed by Kumari Omli alone challenging her conviction and sentence under Section 201 of the Penal Code.

5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the appellant is an unmarried girl, aged about 19 years and that her mere presence in the house could not constitute an offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code in the absence of any proof of the ingredients of that Section There appears to be much substance in this submission. It may be pointed out that while convicting the appellant under Section 201, the learned trial Judge took into consideration the facts that when the body of deceased Saroj was found burning, the appellant and other convicted co-accused took no steps to extinguish the fire and that the appellant along with the other co-accused was present there only as silent spectator. In our considered opinion, the fact that the appellant was a silent spectator and made no attempt to extinguish the fire alone may not be sufficient to convict her for an offence under Section 201.

In order to convict a person for an offence under Section 201, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that the person charged has caused any evidence of commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention gave any information respecting the offence which he/she knows or believes to be false.

6. The expression "cause" occurring in Section 201 has not been defined. In ordinary and general parlence as well as the dictionary meaning of the word "cause" means, to bring into existence which envisages same sort of active step on the part of the doer of the act in the matter of causing disappearance of evidence relating to a particular off