PETITIONER: HANUMAN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT25/11/1993 BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 AIR 1307 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 39 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.Eight persons, namely, Basti Ram, Samander, Hanuman,
Chunnilal, Dhyala, Harnath, Sultan and Godu Ram were
prosecuted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
They were tried by the learned Sessions Judge who
40
convicted Basti Ram and Hanuman under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life.
Samander and Dhyala were convicted for offence under Section
201 IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for three years and to pay a fine of Rs 200 each and in
default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a further period of six months. The remaining four
accused, namely, Harnath, Sultan, Godu Ram and Chunnilal
were acquitted.
2.Basti Ram, Hanuman, Samander and Dhyala filed an appeal
challenging their conviction and sentence while the State of
Rajasthan filed an appeal against the acquittal of Samander
for the offence under Section 302 IPC and of Harnath,
Sultan, Godu Ram and Chunnilal for their acquittal for this
offence under Section 201 IPC. The High Court, vide
judgment dated May 12, 1983, set aside the conviction of
Basti Ram and Hanuman for an offence under Section 302 IPC.
Hanuman was, however, convicted for an offence under Section
201 [PC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs 200 and in
default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six
months. The conviction of Samander and Dhyala for the
offence under Section 201 IPC and the sentence imposed upon
them for the said offence was also affirmed by the High
Court. The convicts are before us in appeal by special
leave against their conviction and sentence.
3.In short the prosecution case is that Uda Ram had no
son and had only two daughters, namely Bhuji and Sharbati.
Basti Ram, who stands acquitted by the High Court is the son
of Bhuji while Chandgi Ram deceased was the son of Sharbati.
It was shortly after the death of Uda Ram that disputes
arose between Basti Ram and Chandgi Ram regarding the lands
of Uda Ram. On account of these disputes, some criminal
litigation started between the parties and a case under
Section 307 IPC was registered against Chandgi Ram which was
pending disposal on the date of occurrence. Chandgi Ram on
account of the strained relations, left the village Bharonda
and started living in village Bugala. Basti Ram, however,
continued to stay at village Bharonda where the lands of Uda
Ram were situated. On the festival of Teej which fell on
August 12, 1972 Basti Ram came to village Bugala and he
along with Samander and Hanuman called Chandgi Ram in the
evening to his chhappar. The parties discussed about the
division of lands. Chandgi Ram was later on sent for by his
wife and mother to have his meals and he returned to his
Kotha for having his meals and told his wife and others
about the discussion with Basti Ram. After taking his meals
Chandgi Ram retired to his Kotha where he was to sleep
alone. His mother Smt Sharbati PW 14, his wife Smt
Ramkauri, PW 7 and his sister Manbhari, PW 11 along with his
other brother Khyali, slept in the other room of the same
Kotha. In the morning of August 13, 1972 the sister of
Chandgi Ram, Manbhari PW 11, went to leave the beddings in
the Kotha in which Chandgi Ram was sleeping and discovered
that a rope was tied round the neck of Chandgi Ram and he
was dead. She shouted whereupon Ramkauri, PW 7 and
Sharbati, PW 14 rushed to that room. Samander, one of the
appellants, followed and is reported to have untied the rope
from the neck of the deceased Chandgi Ram and took it away
with him. Dhyala and Hanuman along with the wife of Dhyala
also came there and all of them advised Ramkauri, Manbhari
and Sharbati not to weep or make any noise as otherwise the
police might suspect them or harass them. Some villagers,
including neighbours, came to the house and the dead body of
41
Chandgi Ram was brought out from his Kotha and placed on
straws and covered by a cloth. PW 13, Ramdeo Singh, a
teacher, had also reached the house of the deceased at about
7 a.m. on August 13, 1972, which happened to be a Sunday.
According to him, he had seen a ligature mark on the neck of
the deceased and some bleeding from the left ear and
presence of mucus under the nose of the deceased.
Suspecting that the death of the deceased was unnatural, he
sent Jairam, PW 10 to the police station, Gudha to inform
the police. Jairam PW 10 went to the police station and
according to the Roznamacha entry D-6 recorded by the Head
Muharir, he gave information to the police to the effect
that some person had died in the village Bugala in
suspicious circumstances without naming the deceased.
Since, neither the name of the deceased nor any other
details regarding the deceased were given, the report was
considered to be vague and incomplete and no FIR was
registered on the basis thereof. In the meantime, it
appears, the body of the deceased was taken to the cremation
ground and cremated.
4.The family members of Ramkauri, PW 7, the wife of the
deceased on hearing about the death came to the house of
their daughter and on August 17, 1972 Ramkauri, PW 7,
accompanied them and went to her parental house. She is
reported to have told them the story of the previous day.
Next day i.e. on August 18, 1972 at about 8.30 a.m. FIR Ex.
P-3 was recorded at police station Gudha on the basis of a
written complaint and the case under Sections 302/201 IPC
was registered and investigation commenced. The accused
persons were arrested and later tried as noticed in the
earlier part of this judgment.
5.There is no direct evidence of murder in this case.
The circumstances under which the conviction under Section
201 IPC has been recorded by the Sessions Judge and the High
Court alone need a notice at this stage, since the charge
under Section 302 IPC has in any case failed and there is no
appeal filed by the State against that acquittal. The three
circumstances which were pressed into aid by the prosecution
in support of the charge under Section 201 IPC before the
trial court and the High Court were-
(i) the condition of the dead body as
noticed by the witnesses showed that Chandgi
Ram had been murdered;
(ii)that the accused persons had taken part
in giving bath to the dead body even though
they were aware of the condition of the dead
body and had not waited for the police;
(iii)that even though the accused were asked
to wait for the arrival of the police, they
were in a hurry to get the dead body cremated
and despite protestations took away the body
for cremation and cremated the same.
6.Insofar as the first two circumstances are concerned
since the charge under Section 302 IPC has failed it pales
into significance, except the extent that the prosecution
alleged that Chandgi Ram died an unnatural death and Jai Ram
PW 10 saw a ligature mark on the neck and according to the
wife and daughter of the deceased, Samander removed the rope
from the neck and took it away. Who did the rope belong to?
Why did the widow of the deceased not disclose to Jai Ram
and other PWs, at the earliest opportunity about the removal
of the rope? These questions have not been answered by the
prosecution and the witnesses have offered no explanation
about them either. Therefore, the mere fact that Chandgi
Ram allegedly died an unnatural death would not be
sufficient
42
to bring home a charge under Section 201 IPC, unless the
prosecution was further able to establish that the accused
persons knew or had reason to believe that an offence had
been committed, causing the evidence of the commission of
the offence to disappear. We have gone through the evidence
of the witnesses produced by the prosecution in detail. The
widow of the deceased Ramkauri, PW 7 did not in her
statement state that she had seen any blood coming out of
the ear of the deceased. Even with regard to the question
of giving bath to the deceased by the accused persons she is
silent in her deposition, even though the brother of the
deceased, Basti, must have taken part in the giving of the
bath to the dead body before cremation. Manbhari, PW 11,
the sister of the deceased did not disclose to the police
the names of those who are alleged to have given a bath to
the deceased although she tried to improve upon her
statement in the court by naming the acquitted accused
besides Dhyala and others as the persons as who had given
bath to the deceased. We are not satisfied that it was only
the appellants before this Court who participated in giving
bath to the deceased before cremation as according to the
evidence on record, many neighbours had joined in giving a
bath to the deceased, which is customary before a dead body
is taken for cremation. Giving of bath, therefore, by
itself could not be treated as a circumstance, much less a
clinching one, to connect the appellants with an offence
under Section 201 IPC.
7. Coming now to the third circumstance relied upon by the
prosecution, Mr R. Sasiprabhu, learned counsel for the
State laid some emphasis on that circumstance in an attempt
to sustain the conviction of the appellant. The Division
Bench of the High Court had analysed this circumstance and
noticed that the accused persons had made preparations for
the cremation of the dead body and while Hanuman remained at
the house Samander and Dhyala along with others took the
body to the cremation ground. After having so noticed, the
Division Bench observed :
“As regards the evidence that has been adduced
by the prosecution to prove that these accused
persons had rushed with the cremation of the
dead body even though they were asked to wait
for the arrival of the police, we have held
that reliance could not be placed on the said
evidence.”
8.After recording the finding, that there was no material
on the record to show that the appellants had rushed with
the cremation of the dead body or that they removed the dead
body hurriedly, the High Court observed that there were
other circumstance to connect the appellants with the
offence under Section 201 IPC. However in vain; have we
searched through the judgment as also the evidence on the
record, for the existence of those circumstance. The
evidence on the record is much too cryptic and scanty to
bring home the charge to the appellants for an offence under
Section 201 IPC as neither of the circumstances, either
taken individually or collectively connects the appellants
with an offence under Section 201 IPC. The circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution do not lead only to the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and are not
inconsistent with their innocence. The prosecution has
failed to establish the charge under Section 201 IPC against
the appellants.
9.We find that both the learned Sessions Judge and the
High Court also overlooked another important aspect in the
case. Section 201 IPC reads as under :
43
“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.
* * * * *”
10.A bare reading of the section would show that to bring
home the charge, under Section 201 IPC the prosecution is
obliged to establish that the accused knowing or having
reason to believe that an offence had been committed had
caused the offence of the commission of that offence to
disappear “with the intention of screening the offender from
legal punishment” or with that intention given any
information respecting the offence, which he knows or
believes to be false. No finding has been recorded by the
Sessions Court or the High Court to the effect that all
those persons who gave bath to the dead body or went with
the dead body to cremate it, did so “with the intention of
screening the offender from legal punishment”. Without
recording such a finding, no conviction under Section 201
IPC could be maintained. In this respect it is pertinent to
notice that the High Court did not record any finding much
less clear or cogent to the effect that the deceased Chandgi
Ram had, in fact, been murdered by known or unknown
assailants and that the appellants were either the
assailants themselves or in any event knew who the
assailants were. Section 201 IPC, in the face of the
material on the record, could not be pressed into aid.
11.Keeping in view, what we have stated above, we find
that the conviction of the appellants for the offence under
Section 201 IPC cannot be sustained. This appeal,
therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and
sentence of the appellants is set aside. The appellants are
on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
44