Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
12. In V. L. Tresa v. State of Kerala5, this Court has discussed the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 201 of the IPC at paragraph 12: “12. Having regard to the language used, the following ingredients emerge: (I) committal of an offence; (II) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed; (III) person charged with the offence under Section 201 IPC 5 (2001) 3 SCC 549 DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT [KURIAN, J.] should have caused disappearance of evidence or should have given false information regarding the main offence; and (IV) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.”
13. In Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra6, this Court discussed Kalawati (supra), Palvinder Kaur (supra), Suleman Rehiman (supra) and V.L. Tresa (supra) among others. The essential ingredients for conviction under Section 201 of the IPC have been discussed at paragraph 18: “18. 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 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.” In Sou Vijaya @ Baby v. State of Maharashtra7, though this Court held that the decision in V. L. Tresa (supra) was of no assistance to the State in the particular facts, it re-iterated that “there is no quarrel with the legal principle that notwithstanding acquittal with reference to the offence under Section 302 IPC, conviction under Section 201 is permissible, in a given case.” 6 (2007) 7 SCC 502 7 (2003) 8 SCC 296
14. The decisions in Sou Vijaya (supra) and V. L. Tresa (supra) were noticed in State of Karnataka v. Madesha8. While the appeal of the State was dismissed, this Court in unmistakeable terms held that: “9. It is to be noted that there can be no dispute that Section 201 would have application even if the main offence is not established in view of what has been stated in V.L. Tresa and Sou. Vijaya cases…”
15. Thus, the law is well-settled that a charge under Section 201 of the IPC can be independently laid and conviction maintained also, in case the prosecution is able to establish that an offence had been committed, the person charged with the offence had the knowledge or the reason to believe that the offence had been committed, the said person has caused disappearance of evidence and such act of disappearance has been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Mere suspicion is not sufficient, it must be proved that the accused knew or had a reason to believe that the offence has been committed and yet he caused the evidence to disappear so as to screen the offender. The offender may be either himself or any other person.
16. Having thus analysed the legal position, we shall revert to the factual matrix and see whether the conviction in the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 201 of the IPC could be sustained.
17. An analysis of the judgment of the Sessions Judge in this context would be quite relevant. At paragraph-16, having analysed the facts and having referred to the minute details of the alleged commission of the offence, the court has entered the following finding: “16….In this manner this entire case suggest that the behaviour of the accused no. 1 was very suspicious. He has not undertaken the process for the PM of the dead body. He has not declared the facts before the police and the last rites of the dead body have been performed before the maternal family reaches from Ahmedabad. In this manner, while considering the facts on record I come at a conclusion that the accused no. 1 has failed in his duty as a husband. The husband has kept the wife in a bungalow and has most of the time remained away from her. This is very torturing 8 (2007) 7 SCC 35 DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT [KURIAN, J.] and harassing for a wife. Thus as per my opinion it is proved by the prosecution on the basis of the facts on record and especially the chit at 0-1 that there was mental harassment upon the deceased Lila, from the side of the accused no.1. The fact remains that the accused no.1 has not informed the police even though an unnatural death has occurred and the last rites have also been performed without performing the post-mortem and without informing the police. Thus as per my opinion the accused no. 1 is prima facie guilty of the crime under section 498(a) and 201 of the IPC and therefore the prosecution has proved the case partly in affirmation.”
18. The High Court, in appeal, however, took the view that the appellant was not liable to be convicted under Section 498A of the IPC. However, his conviction under Section 201 of the IPC was liable to be maintained. To quote: “5… We have re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of the latest decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Taking into consideration the fact that the complaint was lodged almost after a period of four months of the incident in question, the fact remains is that no post mortem was performed of the deceased. Even if the case of defence is accepted, it was a premature and unnatural death and therefore the mandatory requirements under the law, at least to inform the police of the death and to get the post mortem of the deceased done, were not fulfilled. Admittedly, nothing has come on record to show that the post mortem was carried out and/or the police complaint was immediately filed. Considering the said aspect, we have all reasons to believe that the offence is made out under section 201 of the IPC. However, so far as offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned, we believe the contention of Mr. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate for the accused No.1, that almost after a period of four months, the complaint was lodged and there is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution qua cruelty being perpetrated to the deceased for want of dowry and on the contrary, the accused No.1 had helped the father of the deceased and gave Rs.1 lakh. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned trial judge has rightly convicted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC, however, has committed an error in holding conviction of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and same is not sustainable.”
19. Thus, the only ground for maintaining the conviction under Section 201 of the IPC is that the appellant did not give intimation to the police of the unnatural death and that no post-mortem was conducted.
20. We are afraid, the High Court is not justified in maintaining the conviction under Section 201 only on the ground that no communication was given to the police and that the post-mortem had not been performed. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the father of the deceased and her brother (who is a doctor) had attended the last rites of the deceased and neither of them had any complaint or suspicion at that time of the commission of any offence. The Sessions Court has also taken note of the suicide note left by the deceased wherein she had taken the entire blame on herself. Yet the court has taken the view, from the consideration we have extracted from paragraph-16 of the Sessions court judgment, that the deceased might have been in a state of depression having remained alone for most of the time and it amounted to torture. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 498A by the High Court, and rightly so. The prosecution has also not been able to satisfy the ingredients under Section 201 of the IPC. Neither the Sessions Court nor the High Court has any case that there is any intentional omission to give information by the appellant to the police. It is also to be noted that prosecution has no case under Section 202 of the IPC against the appellant.
21. As held by this Court in Hanuman and others v. State of Rajasthan9, the mere fact that the deceased allegedly died an unnatural death could not be sufficient to bring home a charge under Section 201 of the IPC. Unless the prosecution was able to establish that the accused person knew or had reason to believe that an offence has been committed and had done something causing the offence of commission of evidence to disappear, he cannot be convicted.
22. There is no such allegation against the appellant. The last rites of the deceased were performed in the presence of the members of her family. They had no suspicion at that time of the commission of any offence. The private complaint was lodged after more than three months. 9 1994 Supp (2) SCC 39 DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT [KURIAN, J.] There is no charge under Section 202 of the IPC of intentionally omitting to give information of the unnatural death to the police. It is also not the case of the complainant that he had requested for post-mortem of the body and that intimation should have been given to the police before the last rites were performed.
23. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Sessions Court is not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 201 of the IPC and the High Court maintaining the same. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 201 of the IPC is set aside. Devika Gujral Appeals allowed.