PADMINI MAHENDRABHAI GADDA versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 17-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 825 
PADMINI MAHENDRABHAI GADDA 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 40 of2007) 
JULY17,2017 
[N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 201 - Causing disappearance of 
evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender 
A 
B 
- Ingredients of s. 201 - Prosecution case that main accused owing 
C 
to his illicit relationship with the appellant, committed murder of 
appellants husband with the help of the absconding accused, and 
· that the appellant remained silent and absconded with the main 
accused - Conviction of the main accused u/s. 302 and 20 I, 
however, appellant convicted only u/s. 201 and sentenced to two 
years RI - High Court suo motu enhanced the sentence of the 
D 
appellant to seven years -
On appeal, held: Per N. V. 
Ramana, J. : While considering the charge u/s. 201, it is mandatory 
for the prosecution to prove that the accused actively participated 
in the matter of disappearance of evidence and with an intention to 
screen the offender - Remaining silent and absconding with the 
accused and moving from one place to another place will not supply 
the evidence or fill the gap which is necessary to prove the 
ingredients u/s.201 - Finding of the courts below that by remaining 
silent, appellant indirectly abetted the offence of causing 
disappearance of proof of murder, cannot be accepted - Courts 
below convicted appellant more on sunnises and conjectures, thus, 
conviction u/s. 201 set aside - Appellant having already undergone 
. the sentence imposed by the trial court, order passed by the High 
Court set aside - Per P. C. Pant, J. : Appellant gave false information 
to screen offender, as such, was rightly held guilty by the courts 
below in respect of charge of offence punishable u/s. 201 -Appellant 
having already served more than two years' imprisonment during 
the period of trial/appeal; that she is sixty years old, and twenty 
three years have passed from the date of incident, sentence awarded 
by the High Court reduced to two years RI with fine - In view of 
difference of opinion, matter referred to larger Bench. 
825 
E 
F 
G 
H 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Per N. V. Ramana, J.: 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is well settled that circumstantial evidence 
should be strong, convincing and unassailable leading to the only 
inference that crime should have been committed by the accused 
B 
only and it should not give any other inference. [Para 12] (834-G-
H; 835-A] 
1.2 Criminal trial can never be a fanciful flight of imagination. 
While considering the charge under Section 201 I.P.C, it is 
mandatory for the prosecution to prove that the accused actively 
C 
participated in the matter of disappearance of evidence and with 
an intention to screen the offender. To convict the accused for 
the offence punishable under Section 201, it is necessary that all 
the ingredients are satisfied pointing out at the guilt of the accused 
and a mere suspicion is not sufficient. Accused can never be 
convicted on the basis of probabilities or on assumptions and 
D 
presumptions. [Para 19] [838-B-D] 
1.3 Looking at the entire findings of the trial court, it is 
crystal clear that the court gave a clean chit to the appellant saying 
that she is in no way involved in commission of the crime. The 
trial court gave a categorical finding that there is no evidence of 
E 
participation of accused No.2 in disappearing the said proof of 
offence of murder, but by remaining silent, she has indirectly 
abetted the offence. It was observed that either out of fear or for 
the best reason known to her, she remained silent and abetted 
or aided the offence punishable under section 201 IPC. [Para 21) 
F 
[839-E-G] 
1.4 The whole case of the prosecution is based upon 
circumstantial evidence except for the evidence of sole eye 
witness 'A', the daughter of the deceased and the appellant. The 
eye witness, in her statement, clearly stated that the appellant 
was crying and she was pleading accused No.1 not to kill her 
G husband. She further stated in the cross-examination that accused 
No.1 told the appellant to keep mum and not to make any trouble 
as accused No. 1 and the absconding accused would come back. 
Accused No.2 reiterated the same in her statement under Section 
313 CrPC. [Para 22) [839-G-H; 840-A) 
H 
1.5 The finding of the courts below, that by remaining silent, 
PADMINI MAHENDRABHAI GADDA v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
827 
ac

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