Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the view taken by the High Court.

11. We have perused the Trial Courts record. We find that though charge for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC had been framed against appellant A-1, no such charge was framed against appellant A-2, even with the aid of Section 34 IPC. The only charge framed against A-2 was for an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. True that Section 222 Cr.P.C. clothes the Court with the power to convict a person of an offence which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is charged and tried, but by no stretch of imagination, offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, under which appellant A-2 was convicted by the Trial Court, could be said to be minor offences in relation to that under Section 201 IPC, for which he was charged. In fact, the three offences are distinct and belong to different categories. The ingredients of the offences under the said Sections are vastly different. Therefore, Section 222 Cr.P.C. had no application on facts in hand.

13. Bearing in mind this factual and legal backdrop, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in convicting appellant A-2 for having committed a major offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Nonetheless, it is well settled that notwithstanding acquittal of the said appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC, his conviction under Section 201 IPC is still permissible. (See: Constitution Bench decision in Smt. Kalawati & Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh ). Therefore, the question that remains to be examined is regarding the correctness of the conviction of appellant, A-2 for offence under Section 201 IPC.

15. The first paragraph of the Section contains the postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining three paragraphs prescribe three different tiers of punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each situation. To bring home an offence under Section 201 of IPC, the ingredients to be established are: (i) committal of an offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with the said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence and (iv) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he should have given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false. It is plain that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly needs any emphasis that in order to bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown.

19. The sole reason given by the High Court for holding appellant A-2 guilty of offence under Section 201 of IPC is the circumstance flowing from the evidence of PW-12, wherein she had stated that: Accused No.1 and the deceased Meerabai were sleeping in one room and we were sleeping in the other room. Undoubtedly, the mainstay of the prosecution case was the testimony of PW-12. There is absolutely no other evidence or circumstance attributing to A-2, the knowledge of the commission of offence in respect of his daughter-in-law, Meerabai. Merely because he happened to be father of appellant A-1, it cannot be presumed as a matter of legal proof that he must be deemed to have the knowledge of the offence committed by his son. Even if the evidence of PW-12 is taken at its face value, though the witness was declared hostile and had been cross examined by the prosecution counsel, mere presence of the appellant, A-2 in the house, in our opinion, is not sufficient to draw a presumption that he had the knowledge of commission of offence by his son, appellant, A-1. There is no other established circumstance to complete the chain to bring home the offence under Section 201 IPC. We are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish that the conduct of appellant A-2, both at the time of the occurrence and immediately thereafter, is consistent with the hypothesis of his guilt. We have therefore, no hesitation in holding that the learned Judges of the High Court were in error in convicting appellant A-2 for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.