Delhi District Court
State vs . Umashankar Purohit on 2 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. PUNEET PAHWA,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLST02-032559-2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE Vs. UMASHANKAR PUROHIT
FIR No.380 /2016
PS Saket
U/s 509/201 IPC
JUDGMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : CR No. 4358/2019
B) The date of commission of : 25.04.2016
offence
C) The name of the complainant : Ms Husn Ara Khan, D/o Late
Major W.A. Khan, R/o House
No.539, DDA Flats, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi.
D) The name and address of : Umashankar Purohit, S/o Sh.
accused Pawan Kumar Purohit, R/o House
No.13/43, Mukta Prasad Nagar,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
E) Offence complained of : U/s 509/201 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Not Guilty.
G) Final Order : Acquittal
H) The date of such Order : 02.06.2023
FIR No.380/2016 State Vs. Umashankar Purohit Page No.1 of 8
PS Saket
PUNEET Digitally signed by
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date: 2023.06.02
17:34:41 +0530
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.08.2019
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 02.06.2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 02.06.2023
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. The present case has originated from the charge-sheet filed by the State, against accused Umashankar Purohit S/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Purohit, R/o House No.13/43, Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan. As per charge-sheet, on 25.04.2016 at about 12:35 AM at House no. 539, DDA Flat, Lado Sarai, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Saket, with intention to insult the modesty of the complainant, the accused sent a WhatsApp message from his mobile number i.e. no. 8302078396 on the mobile phone of the complainant at xxxxxxx339 containing abusive language intending that such message be seen and read by complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 509 IPC. Also, accused at unknown date, time and place, knowingly or having the reason to believe that an offence had been committed, caused to break / damage mobile phone of accused and the SIM of mobile no. 8302078396, with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 201 of IPC.
2. On the basis of the charge-sheet, court took cognizance of the offence and when accused appeared on 06.09.2019, he was supplied with copy of charge-sheet and documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was charge-sheeted under Section 354D/509/201 IPC. Court framed charge against the accused for offence punishable under Section FIR No.380/2016 State Vs. Umashankar Purohit Page No.2 of 8 PS Saket PUNEET Digitally signed by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2023.06.02 17:34:49 +0530 509/201 IPC and the accused was discharged under Section 354D IPC. Charge was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. It is a matter of record that offence punishable u/s 509 IPC was compounded as the accused was duly apologized to the complainant and the complainant had made the statement to compound the offence under Section 509 IPC. Accordingly, the only offence now remaining is under Section 201 IPC.
4. During trial, accused admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. the registration of FIR No.380/16 dated 25.04.2016 PS Saket which is Ex.P/A/1; statement of prosecutrix/ victim Ms. Husn Ara Kha under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by Ms. Preeti Parewa, Ld. MM, South District, Saket Court dated 20.05.2016 which is Ex.P/A/2; CDR and CAF of mobile number 9971181339 and 83020778396 which is Ex.PW-2/1 (Colly); copy of register Mark X and statement of Mohd. Ismail under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.P/A/3. Also, the State examined four witnesses viz. PW-1 Husn Ara Khan, PW-2 Inspector Durga Das, PW-3 SI Amit Kumar and PW-4 HC Babulal.
5. Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which all incriminating material was put to him, to which he pleaded innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence. Final arguments of both the parties were heard at FIR No.380/2016 State Vs. Umashankar Purohit Page No.3 of 8 PS Saket PUNEET Digitally signed by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2023.06.02 17:35:00 +0530 length.
COURT OBSERVATION:
6. It is the case of prosecution that accused at unknown date, time and place, knowingly or having the reason to believe that an offence had been committed, caused to break / damage mobile phone of accused and the SIM of mobile no. 8302078396, with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 201 of IPC. Per-contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused had submitted that the present case is false and concocted as there is previous enmity between the complainant and the accused as the complainant is very well known.
7. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that Section 201 IPC provides read as:
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 be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.--and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.--and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not FIR No.380/2016 State Vs. Umashankar Purohit Page No.4 of 8 PS Saket PUNEET Digitally signed by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2023.06.02 17:35:12 +0530 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.
8. On minute reading of Section 201 IPC, it appears that to establish an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:
(i) an offence has been committed;
(ii) the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence has been committed;
(iii) the accused caused disappearance of the evidence thereof;
(iv) the accused gave false information in respect thereof;
(v) the accused knew or had reason to believe the same to be false;
(vi) the accused did so with intention to screen the offender from legal punishment;
9. In V.L. Tresa vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 549 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 12 has discussed the essential ingredients of the offences under Section 201 IPC, which are as under:
"12. Having regard to the language used, the following ingredients emerge:
(I) committal of an offence;
(II) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the FIR No.380/2016 State Vs. Umashankar Purohit Page No.5 of 8 PS Saket PUNEET Digitally signed by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA 17:35:36 +0530 Date: 2023.06.02 knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed;
(III) person charged with the offence under Section 201 IPC should have caused disappearance of evidence or should have given false information regarding the main offence; and (IV) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment".
10. In Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 313 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the law to convict the person accused of convicting offence under Section 201 IPC, which may be reproduced here-in-below, for convenience, in extenso:
"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 sufficient, 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". AIR 1952 SC 354 AIR 1953 SC 131 AIR 1968 SC 829 The conviction in this case was ultimately set aside on the aforementioned legal position and the facts.
11. In Ram Saran Mahto and another v. State of Bihar, this Court discussed Kalawati (supra) and Palvinder Kaur (supra). It has been held at paragraphs-13 to 15 that conviction under the main offence is not necessary to convict the offender under Section 201 of the IPC. To quote:
FIR No.380/2016 State Vs. Umashankar Purohit Page No.6 of 8 PS Saket PUNEET Digitally signed by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2023.06.02 17:35:48 +0530 "13. It is not necessary that the offender himself should have been found guilty of the main offence for the purpose of convicting him of offence under Section 201. Nor is it absolutely necessary that somebody else should have been found guilty of the main offence. Nonetheless, it is imperative that the prosecution should have established two premises. The first is that an offence has been committed and the second is that the accused knew about it or he had reasons to believe the commission of that offence. Then and then alone the prosecution can succeed, provided the remaining postulates of the offence are also established. (1999) 9 SCC 486.
14. The above position has been well stated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court way back in 1952, in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab:
In order to establish the charge under Section 201, Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed, mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient 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".
12. So far as the offence under Section 201 IPC is concerned, during their cross-examination, all the witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-3 and PW4 had admitted that they never served any notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the accused to produce his mobile phone. There is nothing on record to show that the accused deliberately did not produced his mobile when called upon to do so or to show that the accused deleted the data in his mobile phone FIR No.380/2016 State Vs. Umashankar Purohit Page No.7 of 8 PS Saket PUNEET Digitally signed by PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2023.06.02 17:35:55 +0530 with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence in the present case. When the accused was never called upon to produce his mobile phone then his non-furnishing of the mobile phone would not attract Section 201 IPC. Unless the prosecution is able to establish that the accused person knew or had reason to believe that an offence has been committed and had done something causing the offence of commission of evidence to disappear, he cannot be convicted.
13. In view of the above discussions, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and has not been able to prove the charge for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The accused Umashankar Purohit, S/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Purohit, is accordingly acquitted for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Bail Bond stands cancelled. Surety Bond stands discharged. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of the endorsement, if any, on proper receipt and identification. Accused is directed to furnish necessary bail bonds under Section 437A CrPC.
14. Case property, if any, be confiscated to the State after the expiry of the period of the appeal.
15. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliances.
PUNEET Digitally signed by
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date: 2023.06.02
17:36:05 +0530
(PUNEET PAHWA)
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DISTRICT SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
Announced in the open Court
On 02nd June, 2023
FIR No.380/2016 State Vs. Umashankar Purohit Page No.8 of 8
PS Saket