The Allahabad High Court partly allowed the Criminal Appeal to the extent it relates to the conviction under Section 201 IPC.
The Court observed that to constitute an offence under Section 201 IPC there must be disappearance of some evidence of the commission of offence; removing the corpse of a murdered man from the scene of murder to another place does not come under Section 201 as the removal does not cause the disappearance of evidence of commission of the murder.
The Division Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian passed this order while hearing a Jail Appeal filed by Gulam Rashul.
The Jail Appeal under Section 383 CrPC has been filed by appellant/accused, Gulam Rashul, through Senior Superintendent of Jail, Agra, against the order dated 30.06.2005, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, relating to Case under Sections-302 and 201 IPC, Police Station-Muradnagar, DistrictGhaziabad, whereby, accused appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs 5,000/-and in the event of default in payment of fine, he has to further undergo six months imprisonment. Under Section 201 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs 1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine he has to further undergo one month imprisonment.
The facts of the prosecution story unfolds as under:-
One Anand Singh- informant, on 15.02.2004 at about 1.30 p.m to 5.00 p.m, presented a written First Information Report, at Police Station-Muradnagar, District-Ghaziabad, alleging therein that accused Gulam Rashul, who is a native of District-Samastipur, District-Bihar, is a servant of his brother Ashok. He demanded Rupees 500/- on credit from his employer Ashok, who told him that he will lend the amount tomorrow and directed him to go to the field to collect fodder.
The accused at around 1.30 p.m took Gaurav, son of Ashok, aged about 9 years, with him to the field but Gulam Rashul, at around 5 p.m, returned all alone without fodder. His nephew was also not accompanying him, therefore, the informant and others interrogated him about Gaurav to which he admitted to have killed him in the field of Kripal by strangulation. He had also disclosed that the dead body of Gaurav was lying in the Sugar cane field. Villagers, Ashish Malik, Manoj and others had seen the deceased in the company of the accused while he was on his way to the sugar cane field. Gulam Rashul has killed his nephew.
The investigating officer after collecting the evidence under Section 161 CrPC, against the accused, concluded that the appellant/accused has killed the deceased and in view of the collected evidence, during investigation, he has submitted a charge sheet against the appellant/ accused on 04.02.2004.
Charges against the appellant/accused under Section 302 and 201 IPC were framed, by the Additional Sessions Judged, FTC order dated 01.06.2004 which has been denied by the appellant and claimed tried.
Statement of the appellant accused Gulam Rashul, under Section 313 CrPC was recorded in which he has denied the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has also stated that the same is false. He has further stated that the witnesses have deposed against him on account of enmity.
The Court observed that,
In a case that rests upon circumstantial evidence motive is a relevant factor but is not essential if proved otherwise. We have seen that there is cogent and clinching evidence of Anand Singh, Ashish Malik and Manoj Kumar and the accused has failed to adduce iota of evidence in his favour with regard to the deceased having separated from him, therefore, it was also in the knowledge of the accused as to why or for what reason he had done the deceased to death. There was no prior animosity between the accused with the deceased and his family members, and the accused has failed to prove any such prior enmity.
It was also submission of the Amicus curiae, on behalf of the appellant that had the accused killed the deceased then he would not have returned from the village to the house of his master/ employer. In this connection the A.G.A has contended that the appellant/ accused appears to have returned to the house so that he can set up a defence of innocence.
In our view merely on the basis of the subsequent conduct of the accused the trustworthy evidence of the witnesses on record cannot be disbelieved.
It is for the prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime beyond all reasonable doubts.
In the case the prosecution has successfully completed the chain of circumstances. The fact that what happened to the victim after he was lastly seen by Ashish Malik, Manoj Kumar, was within the knowledge of the accused but he has not spilled beans about the fact which was specifically in his knowledge.
The Court further observed that,
In our view to constitute an offence under Section 201 IPC there must be disappearance of some evidence of the commission of offence; removing the corpse of a murdered man from the scene of murder to another place does not come under Section 201 as the removal does not cause the disappearance of evidence of commission of the murder. Section 201 looks upon a person giving false information with intent to screen an offender as an accessory after the fact and makes him culpable as an offender committing an offence against public justice. Section 201 will apply only when the false information touching the offence with intent to screen the offender is given to those interested in bringing the offender to justice.
Since there is no evidence pertaining to offence under Section 201 IPC, therefore, the conviction under the aforesaid section by the trial Court is erroneous, perverse and without any evidence, therefore, the conviction of the appellant/accused, under Section 201 IPC cannot be upheld against the appellant and as such the appellant/accused Gulam Rashul is accordingly acquitted of the charge under Section 201 IPC.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2011 deserves to be affirmed to the extent of conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 302 IPC and appeal is liable to be dismissed to that extent.
In the result, the Court allowed the Criminal Appeal to the extent it relates to the conviction under Section 201 IPC.
“Impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2011, is hereby confirmed/ affirmed to the extent of conviction of appellant under Section 302 IPC. The appellant, who is in jail, shall serve out the sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court”, the order reads.