Intent to screen the offender must be proven for conviction under Section 201 IPC.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under S.374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment dated 11.1.2011 passed by the 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.7/2010, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under S.201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and further directed to pay fine of Rs.2000 / , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that between 23.9.2009 to 24.9.2009, all three accused namely present appellant, coaccused Banwari and Panchuram (now acquitted) crushed the head of deceased Umend Ram with the help of stone and thereby murdered him and in order to screen themselves, they have thrown the dead body of deceased Umend Ram beneath the bridge in floating stream and thereby committed the offence under S.302 and S.201 of the IPC. Learned 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur by its impugned judgment convicted appellant Banwari alias Banwasi Patel for offence under S.302 of the IPC and his appeal being Criminal Appeal No.423/2012 has been disposed off today by separate order as having been abated. However, the present appellant has been convicted for offence under S.201 of the IPC by recording a finding in paras 39 and 42 as under:
(Vernacular Matter Omitted Ed)

3. Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that taking the finding recorded by the trial Court in paras 39 and 42 of the impugned judgment as it is, the only allegation against the present appellant is that he has assisted coaccused Banwari alias Banwasi in throwing the dead body of Umend Ram beneath the bridge in steam. He would further submit that no finding has been recorded by the trial Court that the appellant charged with the offence under S.201 of the IPC had the knowledge or reason to believe that offence under S.302 of the IPC has been committed and the act has been done with intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he had given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false and merely on the basis that corpse of deceased Umend Ram has been thrown beneath the bridge in floating stream, he has been convicted. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant are liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Arijit Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State, would submit that ingredients of S.201 of the IPC have been satisfied and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. The appellant has been convicted as noticed hereinabove under S.201 of the IPC. S.201 of the IPC states as under:
'201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
if a capital offence. - shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also