SOU. VIJAYA @ BABY versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 03-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SOU. VIJAYA@ BABY 
v. 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 20 /-Ingredients of-Conviction under-
C Maintainability of-Appellant's brother burning his wife to death while 
appellant was sleeping in another room-Held, intention to screen the 
offender must be the primary and sole object of accused-There is no 
material to bring in application of Section 20 I by attributing knowledge 
of commission of offence to appellant-Conviction set aside-Sections 
302; 3048 and 498A. 
D 
Brother of appellant was married to the deceased. Within a short 
period of marriage, deceased was burnt to death. Appellant alongwith 
her brother was charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 
3048, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant was held 
E guilty for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC by Additional 
Sessions Judge and was acquitted of the other offences. Appeal before 
the High Court was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of appellant, it was contended that the ingredients of 
Section 201 IPC are absent; that since the death was by burning, the 
F question of causing disappearance of evidence does not arise; that in 
view of the appellant's acquittal relating to offence under Section 302 
IPC, she had no role to play in the murder of the deceased and hence 
the conviction was unsustainable. 
G 
On behalf of the State, it was contended that even if an accused 
is acquitted of offence relatable to Section 302 IPC, yet conviction 
under Section 201 IPC is permissible. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD : 1.1. Section 201 IPC requires that the accused must have 
340 
SOU. VIJAYA@BABYv. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
341 
had the intention of screening the offender. To put it differently, the A 
intention to screen the offender must be the primary and sole object 
of the accused. The fact that the concealment was likely to have that 
effect is not sufficient, for Section 201 speaks of intention as distinct 
from a mere likelihood. (344-8, CJ 
1.2 The ingredients of the offence under Section 201 are - (i) that B 
an offence has been committed, (ii) that the accused knew or had 
reason to believe the commission of such an offence, iii) that with such 
knowledge or belief he - (a) caused any evidence of the commission of 
that offence to disappear, or (b) gave any information relating to that 
offence which he then knew or believed to be false; (iv) that he did so C 
as aforesaid with the intention of screening the offender from legal 
punishment. On applying these legal principles to the factual scenario 
it is clear that the prosecution has not established the essential 
ingredients. (344-E-H) 
D 
2.1 Although the legal principle that notwithstanding acquittal 
with reference to the offence under Section 302 IPC, conviction under 
Section 20 I is permissible in a given case cannot be disputed, in the 
present case in addition to the fact that the appellant has been 
acquitted of the charges relating to Section 302 IPC, there is no 
material to bring in application of Section 201 by attributing knowledge E 
of the commission of the offence to her. Therefore, conviction of 
appellant cannot be maintained. (345-B-DI 
VI. Tresa v. State of Kera/a, (2001] 3 SCC 549, referred to. 
2.2 The charges framed were for causing disappearance of 
evidence. Though in a given case defective charge does not vitiate trial 
in terms of Section 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908, where 
F 
the omission is vital and even the substance of accusations is totally 
different from what is sought to be established by the prosecution and G 
there is no evidence on record to attribute knowledge of commission 
of offence by the other accused that can be an additional factor for 
acquitting the accused. (345-C-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
901 of 1996. 
H 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.96 of the Bombay High 
B 
Court in Crl. A. No. 362 and 394 of 1992. 
U.R. Lalit and A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant. 
Mukesh K. Giri for Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Appellant-Vijaya faced trial along with her 
brother Nepalchandra for alleged commission of offences punishable under 
C Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for 
short '!PC'). The II Additional S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.