LexRAM SARAN MAHTO AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAM SARAN MAHTO AND ANR. v. ~ THE STATE OF BIHAR I ' SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 . B [K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH JJ.] ? Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 34, 201, 342, 379-Deceased woman found missing-Dead body of the deceased recovered from well of the house- c Body of the deceased cremated hurriedly-Complaint lodged with the police- Appellants chargesheeted for offences under Section 302 read with 34, 201, I 342 and 379 /PC-Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 20! ;. ill'- !PC-Appeal before the High Court dismissed-Present appeal filed-Held- Hurried cremation stood to be an incriminating circumstance-Stood isolated and unlinked with any other circumstance-Commission of offence in respect D of death of the deceased not proved-Conviction under Section 201 /PC unfounded The deceased woman was married to one K and was living in her husband's house. On 11-06-1986, the appellant, a cousin of the deceased's husband rushed to the parental house of the deceased to inform them that E the deceased was missing from her marital house. Immediately upon hearing the said news, PW-3, brother of the deceased rushed to the martial home of the deceased on a bicycle while PW-1, father of the deceased followed on foot. PW-3 reached the-house earlier, in whose presence the appellant suggested searching of the well in the house. In pursuance of the said search, the body of the deceased was spotted and recovered from the well. Thereafter, the F husband of the deceased along with some of his relatives insisted upon cremation of the deceased while PW-3 asked to postpone the funeral till the ·- arrival of PW-1. However, after an altercation, PW-3 was tied up and his cycle was snatched away. On his arrival, PW-1 was also fastened with a rope. The body of the deceased was then taken to a nearby orchard where it was G cremated. After the whole incident, PWs-1 and 3 lodged a complaint with the police in pursuance of which 13 persons including the appellants were charged for offences under Sections 302 read with Sections 34, 201, 342 and 379 IPC. The Trial Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove H the charge of commission of murder. However, it convicted four of the 250 - R.S. MAHTO v. STATE OF BIHAR 251 appellants under Section 201 IPC. The Trial Court refrained from resorting A to any discussion on the culpability of the appellants regarding the offence. One of the convicts was sentenced to 7 years RI while the remaining were sentenced to 3 years RI. The conviction of the appellants was challenged in appeal before the High Court, but without success. Hence, this appeal against the conviction and sentence under Section 201 IPC. B Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1.1. The first paragraph of Section 201 IPC 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. The two indispensable ingredients for all the three C tiers in Section 201 are: (1) The accused should have had the knowledge that an offence has been committed or at least that he should have had reasons to believe it. (2) He should then have caused disappearance of the evidence of commission of that offence. Prosecution cannot escape from establishing the aforesaid tWo basic ingredients, for conviction of the accused· under D Section 201. The gravest degree contemplated in Section 201 IPC is punishable with the maximum sentence of imprisonment for~eyen years. The minimum requirement for the offence to reach the said peak degree is that the offender should have caused disappearance of evidence of another offence which is punishable with death, and that should be established in addition to the above mentioned two basic ingredients. Even ifthe two basics E are established, and the prosecution failed to establish the next requirement the court cannot convict the accused for the highest tier specified in the section. [255-F-H; 256-A-B] 1.2. It is not necessary that the offender himself should have been F found guilty of the main offence for the purpose of convicting him of offence under Section 201 IPC. Nor is it absolutely necessary that somebody else should have been found guilty of the main offence. Nonetheless, it is imperative that prosecution should have established two premises. First is that an offence has been committed and second is that the accused knew
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.