Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The appellant in C.A.No.766/90 is accused No.2 in S.C.No.71/89 disposed of by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem. The appellant in C.A.No.779/90 is accused No.11 in the same case. The appellants in C.A.No.771/90 are A3 to A7 in the same case. All these appellants are police officers. They filed these three appeals against their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, whereby the accused were sentenced as follows:

A2 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for an offence under Section 120B I.P.C., life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 r/w 120B I.P.C., R.I. for 18 months for an offence under Section 365 r/w 120B, one year R.I for an offence under Section 342 I.P.C. and another R.I. for one year for an offence under Section 201 r/w 120B, three years R.I. for an offence under Section 302 r/w 120-B I.P.C., two years R.I. for an offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and another two years R.I for an offence under Section 218 I.P.C.
A3 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for an offence under Section 120B I.P.C. and one year R.I. for an offence under Section 342 I.P.C.
A4 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for an offence under Section 120B I.P.C., 18 months R.I. for an offence under Section 365 I.P.C., one year R.I. each count for an offence under Section 342(2 counts) I.P.C., life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and 2 years R.I. for an offence under Section 201 I.P.C.
A5 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for an offence under Section 120B I.P.C., one year R.I. on each count for an offence under Section 342 (2 counts), life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and two years R.I. for an offence under Section 201 I.P.C.

8. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V. Gopinath appearing for A3 to A7 contends that the conviction of A2 and A.11 for offences under Sections 201 & 218 I.P.C. and also the conviction of A4 and A5 for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C., is totally unwarranted and it cannot be said that any of them caused disappearance of any evidence with a view to screen the offenders or framed any incorrect record with intend to save anybody from punishment.

9. Besides hearing both sides, we also gave an anxious reading to the trial Court judgment since it is a case where unfortunately an advocate from Kerala had to meet his death under suspicious circumstance.

42.Coming to the conviction of A2, A4, A5 and A11 for an offence under Section 201 I.P.C., the learned trial Judge relying on the report sent by A2 viz., Ex.P.177 in which he has stated that Rasheed was assaulted by the men of P.W.35 and the statement of A2 that at 8.15 p.m., Rasheed left for his place by Island Express, convicted A2 holding that he misled the public and concealed the murder of Rasheed to screen the offence of murder by him and his men. It is unfortunate that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that A2 was having any knowledge about the commission of the offence of murder. To establish an offence under Section 201 I.P.C., the prosecution is expected to prove knowledge or belief on the part of the offender that an offence has been committed and thereafter, he caused any evidence 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. The knowledge of the commission of the offence on the part of A2 has not been proved by any evidence. Even with regard to A4 and A5, they have only made entries in their pocket note books regarding the events that took place on 14.8.1987, 15.8.1987 and 16.8.1987. They also cannot be held to have knowledge about the commission of the offence so as to screen the real offenders from legal punishment by submitting false information. Moreover, insofar as the disposal of the body, there is absolutely no evidence to hold that any of the accused brought the dead body of Rasheed from Bangalore to Railway Track nearby Salem. The learned trial Judge rightly rejected the statements of P.Ws.1,14,15 and 16. Further, the learned trial Judge also holds that even though it is the case of prosecution that A4, A5, A7, A8, A10, A13, A17 and A18 transported the dead body from Bangalore in a car and it was thrown with the help of A14, A15 and A16 near the railway track in Salem District, actual transport of the dead body has not been proved by any evidence. Having said so, the learned trial Judge infers that the person who arranged for the murder of Rasheed should have arranged for the disposal of the body also, because the dead body cannot be kept in the lodge. Therefore, he holds that as A2,A4 and A5 were the persons behind the murder, certainly they would have prearranged for the disposal of the body and this circumstance is corroborated by the statement of P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 and P.Ws.14 and 15 in Exs.P.80 and 81 against A4 and A5. Having held that the statements of P.Ws.1, 14,15 and 16 are inadmissible, the learned trial Judge chose to rely on them only to convict A4 and A5. As we have already held that the offence of murder has not been proved against A2, A4 and 15, even accepting the reasoning of the learned trial Judge, they cannot be held guilty for disposal of the body. Likewise, A.11 also cannot be held to be liable for an offence under Section 201 I.P.C., merely because, he sent a report Ex.P.158 denying the press report for the assault of Rasheed. Any act done by the accused with a view to screen the real offender from legal punishment and with a view to cause disappearance of the evidence is punishable under Section 201 I.P.C., if that act was done by that person with the knowledge and belief that the particular offence has been committed. We are at a loss to understand as to how A.11 was convicted for an offence under Section 201 I.P.C. Therefore, the conviction of A2, A4, A5 and A11 under Section 201 I.P.C. also has to be set aside.