DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 12-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
641
DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL
v.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 265-266 of  2018)
FEBRUARY 12, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s.201 – Whether conviction under s.201 could be maintained
while acquitting the accused of main offence – Held: A charge under
s.201 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.
s.201 – Unnatural death – Prosecution case was that the wife
of the accused committed suicide by hanging –  Last rites attended
by father and brother of the deceased – After four months the father
of the deceased initiated criminal proceedings against accused
under various sections including s.498A and s.201 – Trial court
convicted the accused under s.498A and s.201, however, High Court
set aside conviction under s.498A while maintaining conviction
under s.201 on the ground that appellant did not give intimation to
the police of the unnatural death and that no post mortem was
conducted – On appeal, held: Neither the trial court nor the High
Court had any case that there was any intentional omission to give
information by the appellant to the police under s.202 against the
appellant – Mere fact that deceased allegedly died an unnatural
death could not be sufficient to bring home a charge under s.201 –
Unless prosecution was able to establish that accused knew or had
reason to believe that an offence has been committed and had done
641
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 641
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
something causing the offence of commission of evidence to
disappear he cannot be convicted – There was 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 – It was 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 – In the facts and circumstances, the
conviction of the appellant under s.201 was not maintainable.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1. 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. [Para 20] [651-B-E]
2. 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. There is no charge under Section
202 of the IPC of intentionally omitting to give information of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
unnatural death t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.