J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred challenging the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, Krishnagiri District on 09.03.2015 in SC.No.18 of

2011.

2. There are totally four accused in this case. The appellant is the 1st accused. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2010 at about 11.00 p.m accused 1 to 3 murdered one Pasavaraj (who was the husband of the 2nd accused) by conspiring with the 4th accused. The motive for the occurrence is said to be the illegal intimacy of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused, which was disliked by the husband of the 2nd accused and he reprimanded them. In pursuant to the conspiracy among the accused 1 to 4, the accused 1, 2 and 4 went to the house of the 2nd accused in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 27-D 5009. After entering into the house of the 2nd accused, A4 caught hold of the legs of the deceased Pasavaraj by preventing him from escaping; the 3rd accused pressed his face with a pillow and the 1st accused and 2nd accused strangulated and killed him. In order to cause the disappearance of the evidence, the accused 1 to 4 took the dead body of the deceased Pasavaraj in the Tata Sumo to Balacury village and on the way the vehicle hit on a tree and stopped. Thereafter, the accused ran away.

2.1. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 read with 120(B) and 201 IPC. The case was taken cognizance and copies were furnished. The charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 read with 120(B) and

201 IPC and when the accused were questioned and they pleaded not guilty.

2.2 During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, 17 witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW17 and Exs.P1to P19 were marked and M.O.1 to 16 were marked. After concluding the trial and after considering the materials available on record, the learned trial Judge found the 1st accused guilty for the offence under Section 201 IPC alone and convicted and sentenced him by imposing a punishment of 7 years R.I along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay the fine and to undergo one year R.I. The other accused have been acquitted and the first accused was acquitted from all other charges framed against them. Aggrieved over that, the first accused has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. Perused the entire materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC have been framed based on the same evidence and when the charge of murder itself not accepted, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC alone. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State of U.P Vs. Kapil Deo and another reported in 191 Supp(2) SCC 170. The learned trial Judge, who convinced with the evidence on record and found the appellant not guilty for the offence of murder, ought to have acquitted him from the offence of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned Trial Judge had found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 201 IPC, by deeply scrutinising the evidence and documents produced before him. The prosecution proved each and every circumstances pointing out to prove the guilt of the accused and that cannot be toppled by stating that the Court should not convict the accused for the offence under Section 201 IPC, since the accused was acquitted from the offence charged under Section 302 IPC.

6. The deceased Pasavaraj was the husband of the 2nd accused. The motive for the occurrence as stated by the prosecution is the illegal intimacy between the 1st accu