Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandin vs State on 7 July, 2011
S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.338/1995
Chandning v. State of Raj
Order dt:07.07.2011
1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
::
JUDGMENT
::
PETITIONER: RESPONDENT:
Chandning v. State of Rajasthan
S.B. CR. REVISION PETITION NO.338 OF 1995
:::
Date of Order: 07th July 2011
::
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN
Mr Sunil Rangwa for Mr Manish Sishodia, for the petitioner Mr K.R. Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor REPORTABLE Heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
2.This Criminal Revision Petition under sec.397 read with sec.401 CrPC has been filed against the order dated 31st October 1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Cr. Appeal No.63/1991 whereby appeal was partly allowed and while acquitting from charge of offence under secs.498A & 176 IPC, maintained the conviction of the appellant-accused under sec.201 IPC and the sentence of 06 months' rigorous imprisonment therefor, passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh in Cr. Case No.763/1986 vide order dated 19th September 1989.
3.Brief facts of the case are that a belated information was forwarded on 07th March 1985 by complainant Bhanwar Lal to the Dy. S.P., Bhim etc, inter alia, alleging that his niece Anwal was S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.338/1995 Chandning v. State of Raj Order dt:07.07.2011 2/7 maltreated by her husband, sister-in-law etc and that application was sent by the Dy.S.P. to the SHO, Deogarh for registering First Information Report. Then, on that basis, on 29th March 1985 FIR No.42/1985 for offence under sec.306, 201, 176 IPC was registered. After due investigation, the Police filed challan against the accused-petitioner and others for offence under secs.498A, 176 & 201 IPC.
4.During the trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under sec.313 CrPC was recorded. The accused-petitioner did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned trial court, after hearing final arguments, vide order dated 19th September 1989 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner in the following manner:
U/s 498A IPC - 02 years R.I. + fine of Rs.200/-
U/s 201 IPC - 06 months' rigorous imprisonment U/s 176 IPC - 01 month's rigorous imprisonment
5.The appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was partly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide impugned judgment dated 31st October 1995 whereby conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for offence under sec.201 IPC was maintained but conviction for offence under secs.498A & 176 IPC was set aside. Aggrieved by the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below, the accused-petitioner has filed present Revision Petition.
S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.338/1995 Chandning v. State of Raj Order dt:07.07.2011 3/7
6.The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that the learned courts below erred in law as well as on facts in not appreciating that in absence of any offence being proved by the prosecution against the accused-petitioner, there can not be a conviction for alleged offence of causing disappearance of evidence thereof. He submitted that it is clear from the evidence on record that no evidence was found against the accused-petitioner about commission of said offence under secs.498A and 176 IPC and as such, charge of offence under sec.201 IPC can not be sustained against the accused-petitioner. Therefore, the accused-petitioner deserves to be acquitted from charge under sec.201 IPC.
7.The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further contended that the learned courts below failed to appreciate that there is no evidence of offence under sec.201 IPC because the cremation was carried out in pursuance of suicide committed by the deceased as part of ordinary rites & customs being followed by the accused- petitioner, without realizing that a false case may be foisted upon them by the complainant.
8.He further submitted that the courts below erred in not appreciating that no offence as such is made out against the accused-petitioner and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside as a whole. The learned courts below further erred in not appreciating that in absence of any offence being proved, the finding as arrived at regarding death being result of any offence, is bad in law. He, therefore, prayed that the Revision Petition be allowed, the impugned judgments & orders passed by both the courts below in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.338/1995 Chandning v. State of Raj Order dt:07.07.2011 4/7 regarding to maintaining conviction under sec.201 IPC be set aside and the accused-petitioner may be acquitted of the charge.
9.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor first supported the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below but during the arguments, admitted that both the learned courts below acquitted the accused-revision-petitioner from offence under secs.306, 498A and 176 IPC and as per requirements to establish a charge for offence under sec.201 IPC, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed in this regard. Faced with this situation, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that appropriate order may be passed by the Court in this regard.
10.I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments as also record of the courts below.
11.It is not in dispute that the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand acquitted the accused-petitioner from charge under secs.498A and 176 IPC but maintained conviction under sec.201 IPC. As far as conviction under sec.201 IPC is concerned, in order to fully understand the scope & ambit of sec.201 IPC, it would be pertinent to look into provisions envisaged under sec.201 IPC together with illustration thereto:
"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;
S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.338/1995 Chandning v. State of Raj Order dt:07.07.2011 5/7 ......
......
If punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence or with fine, or with both.
Illustration A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment for either description for seven years, and also to fine."
12.The ingredients to constitute a charge of offence under sec.201 IPC are - a) that an offence was committed; b) that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such an offence had been committed; c) that the accused caused evidence thereof to disappear; and d) that the accused caused disappearance of the evidence with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.
13.In this way, what sec.201 IPC requires is that the accused must have had intention of screening the offender. In the instant case, when the accused-revision-petitioner has been acquitted from main charge under secs.498A and 176 IPC then, in my opinion, there is no material on record to convict the accused-petitioner for offence under sec.201 IPC alone.
14.In order to establish a charge under sec.201 IPC, the prosecution must first prove that an offence had been committed, S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.338/1995 Chandning v. State of Raj Order dt:07.07.2011 6/7 not merely suspicion that it might have been committed and that the accused knowing or having reason to believe that such an offence had been committed, and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, had caused the evidence thereof to disappear.
15.The proof of the commission of an offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the offence under sec.201 IPC. In order to establish the charge under sec.201 IPC, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed and mere suspicion that it has been committed, is not sufficient. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 74 held that mere knowledge on the part of the accused of the removal of the dead bodies did not bring the case within the ambit of sec.201 IPC and that Section's essential requirement is causing any evidence of commission of an offence to disappear. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that unless the prosecution could establish that the accused had caused any evidence to disappear, the charge under sec.201 IPC would not be sustainable. The proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court was that strongest suspicion against an accused person will not amount to legal proof.
16.In the instant case, when the accused-revision-petitioner has been acquitted from the main charge under secs.306, 498A and 176 IPC by both the courts below then it is clear that commission of alleged offence has not been proved by the prosecution against the accused-petitioner. Thus, conviction only under sec.201 IPC can not be sustained in the eye of law.
S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.338/1995 Chandning v. State of Raj Order dt:07.07.2011 7/7
17.In view of aforesaid discussion, conviction of the accused- petitioner under sec.201 IPC can not be sustained. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 31st October 1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand is set aside and the accused-petitioner Chandning s/o Ganga Ram Rebari is acquitted of the charge under sec.201 IPC also. The accused-petitioner being already on bail, his bail bonds stands discharged.
[NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN], J.
mma s-3