REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 265-266 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos. 1815-1816 of 2016)

DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL ... APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT ... RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Mehsana (State of Gujarat) for offences under Sections 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”). A sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a penalty of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of three Signature Not Verified NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2018m.02.12onths was awarded under Section 498A and six months and Reason:

Rs.500/- with a default sentence of one month for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC.

3. This is a case where the appellant’s wife committed suicide by hanging. The incident took place on 26.12.1990. The information was conveyed to the family of the deceased. The father and brother of the deceased, who is a doctor by profession, attended the last rites. After more than three months, the father of the deceased filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate at Kadi on 01.04.1991. The same was investigated, and the appellant was charged under Sections 304B, 306, 498A and 201 read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Along with the appellant, seven other persons also faced the trial. By judgment dated 12.09.1995, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 201 of the IPC but acquitted the seven others.

4. The appeals filed in 1995 were heard in the year 2015 and, as per the impugned judgment, the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC but conviction under Section 201 of the IPC was maintained. Thus aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.

5. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the State.

6. Several contentions have been raised on merits. That apart, the appellant has also raised a question of law as to whether the conviction under Section 201 of the IPC could have been maintained while acquitting him of the main offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

7. Learned Counsel have placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354, Smt. Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 131 and Suleman Rehiman Mulani and another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829

8. In Palvinder Kaur (supra), this Court held as follows:

“14. In order to establish the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed, — mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufÏcient, — that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false.”

The conviction in this case was ultimately set aside on the aforementioned legal position and the facts.

9. The Constitution Bench decision in Kalawati (supra) may not be of much assistance in this case since the facts are completely different. The co-accused was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the main offence, and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, this Court deemed it fit to convict Kalawati only under Section 201 of the IPC.

10. Relying on Palvinder Kaur (supra), this Court in Suleman Rehiman (supra), made the following observation:

“6. The conviction of Appellant 2 under Section

201 IPC depends on the sustainability of the conviction of Appellant 1 under Section 304-A IPC. If Appellant 1 was rightly convicted under that provision, the conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC on the facts found cannot be challenged. But on the other han