BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07/04/2011 CORAM HE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI Crl.A.(MD)No.489 of 2005 1.Seetha Lakshmi (pending appeal died) 2.Ramanathan .. Appellants vs. The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Statiion, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.764 of 1998) .. Respondent Prayer This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, to set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in S.C.No.17 of 2000 dated 18.03.2005. !For Appellant ... Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, S.C For Mr.K.Vinayagam ^For Respondent ... Mr.P.N.Pandidurai APP :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered
by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.)
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment in S.C.No.17 of 2000
dated 18.03.2005, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. The appellant is arrayed as A3
for an alleged offence under Section 302 r/w 201 IPC. The specific charge
against the appellant is under Section 201 I.P.C., for screening of offence.
2.The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:-
There were totally four accused and except A3, the other accused had died.
The appellant/A1 and her son A4 are living in Srivilliputhur Town. The deceased
Shanthi is the wife of A4. A1 had illegal intimacy with A2. A2 frequently
visiting the house of A1 and therefore, this was questioned by the deceased
Santhi. Due to which, on 20.08.1998, at about 7.30 a.m., A1 and A2 alleged to
have strangulated the neck of the victim and also by pressing her face with
pillow and thereby A1 and A2 caused the death of deceased Shanthi. After that,
the accused A3 and A4 tried to screen the offence by transporting the body to
Kangeyam for the purpose of burial. They engaged P.W.9, the van driver in
whose van the body of the deceased was taken. As the land lord of the house of
A2 at Kangeyam did not allow the dead body to be brought to his house they
returned. On nearing Oddenchathiram the van driver refused to co operate and the
body was kept on the road. The Inspector of police was informed. On 21.08.1998,
the Head Constable, P.W.1, attached to Oddanchatram Police Station, on
instructions from the Inspector of Police, went to Pannaipatti, where he found
the body of the deceased on the road side. On enquiry, A1, A2 and A4 told that
the deceased Shanthi is the wife of A4 and when she was in their house, met with
an accident while climbing staircase. However, P.W.1 arranged a van and took
the body to Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, where he lodged a complaint
Ex.P.1. Pursuant to which, a case in Crime No.746 of 1998 has been registered on
the file of the Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, for
suspicious death. On 22.08.1998, after registering a case of 174 Cr.P.C., the
respondent Police sent the body for postmortem. The Doctor, P.W.10, who
conducted the Postmortem sent the sample for viscera. Ex.P12 is the report for
examination of hyoid bone. After getting opinion from the forensic lab, the
Doctor opined that the death was due to asphyxia and strangulation. The Expert
Report is Ex.P.33. Thereafter, the First Information Report was altered into one
the offence under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. After investigation, the
respondent Police filed a charge sheet against the accused persons for the
offence under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC.
3.During the pendency of the trial, A2 and A4 died. A1 and A3 alone faced
the trial and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar
District at Srivilliputhur found that A1 guilty for an offence under Section 302
I.P.C., and sentenced to go life imprisonment with default clause and the
appellants/A3 is found guilty for an offence under Section 201 r/w 34 I.P.C.,
and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with default clause.
They have preferred this appeal. Pending appeal, first appellant/A1 died. The
appellant/A3 is before this Court.
4.The point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the
conviction and sentence is sustainable?.
5.Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant/A3 would submit that the appellant had no reason to have knowledge of
an offence committed against the deceased and even according to the prosecution,
it is only the husband of the deceased took away the body to Kangeyam, to
cremate the deceased. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that from
the evidence of Van driver, P.W.9 and the undertaking letter, Ex.P.2, alleged to
have been given to him, the appellant’s name is not found. The learned Senior
Counsel vehemently argued that the presence of the appellant was not spoken by
any of the witnesses and he had no knowledge about the offence and therefore,
the conviction cannot be sustained.
6.On the contrary, Mr.P.N.Pandidurai, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the presence of the
appellant was spoken by the Van driver, who had taken the body to Kangeyam;
P.W.12, the owner of the house; P.W.14, the President of the Panchayat of
Kangeyam Village; the Inspector of Police, who arranged for transport of the
dead body to Srivilliputhur from Pannaipatti and also by P.W.1, who gave the
complaint.
7.We have carefully considered the counter arguments and also perused the
materials available on record.
8.P.W.12, the owner of the house would state that the appellant received a
phone call from Rajapalayam and he went to Rajapalayam very urgently. P.W.9
would categorically state that on 20.08.1998 at 8.00 p.m., the appellant engaged
him to take the dead body of his brother’s wife one Shanthi and he went along
with him. He would further state that on seeing the dead body in a suspicious
circumstances, he enquired about the same and he was told that the deceased
Shanthi met with an accidental fall while climbing the staircase. P.W.9 had
taken the body of the deceased along with the appellant/A3 and the other accused
to Kangeyam, where they met P.Ws.12 and 14. Since P.Ws.12 and 14 would
categorically state that they refused to grant permission for cremation of the
deceased they returned back to Srivilliputhur. P.W.9 would again state that
while reaching Panaipatti Village, the appellant and the other accused pushed
down the body of the deceased and the body was kept lying on the road.
According to the prosecution, the passersby informed the local Police
Inspector, who made arrangement for transport of the body and also ordered P.W.1
to accompany the body and to give a complaint to Srivilliputure Police Station.
A case has been registered and after obtaining the Postmortem report, a charge
sheet was laid for murder and screening of the evidence. From the evidence of
P.Ws.9,12 and 16 corroborated by P.W.1, we are convinced that the appellant was
all along accompanied the other accused and the body of the deceased and the
only object of them was to dispose of the body so that the offence can be
screened and it is unbelievable that the appellant was not aware the offence
committed.
9.Section 201 of I.P.C., reads as follows:-
“201.Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false
information to scree 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 [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 that 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.
10.To attract Section 201 I.P.C., the following ingredients are necessary.
(i) committal of an offence;
(ii) Person charged with the offence must have the knowledge or reason to
believe that the main offence has been committed;
(iii) Person charge with offence should have caused disappearance of
evidence; and
(iv) the act should have been done with an intention of screening the
offender from legal punishment. See., (V.L.Tresa v State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC
953)
11.Therefore, once the accused knew the death of the deceased was not a
natural one, the knowledge is presumed. The presence of the appellant along with
the other accused would demonstrate that the object of taking the body from
Rajapalayam to Kangeyam and returning to Srivilliputhur, is nothing but to
screen the offence and therefore, the conviction imposed by the learned trial
Judge is sustainable.
12.However, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant had nothing to do with the offence and the main offenders A2 and A3
had already died and the husband of the deceased also died and therefore,
requested to show leniency on the appellant.
13.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in view of the request
made by the leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant to show leniency
on the appellant and to meet the ends of justice, we are of the view that the
sentence imposed on the appellant is reduced to the period already under gone.
MPK
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Sayarpuram Police Station,
Tuticorin District
2.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Tuticorin.