STATE OF KARNATAKA versus MADESHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 757 · Decided: 01-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF KARNATAKA 
A 
v. 
MADESHA AND ORS; 
AUGUST l, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; Sections 106 and 201: 
Tampering with evidence/screening the offender-Applicability of 
Section 201 /PC-Held: Accused persons were not the members of the lawful C 
assembly-As per evidence of PW 26, accused persons allegedly threw the 
body of the deceased to fire-Evidence of PW 26 not believed by both the 
Courts below as not cogent and credible-In absence of evidence attributing 
knowledge of commission of offence to accused, Section 201 /PC not attracted .. 
The questions which arose for determination in this appeal were as to 
whether Section 201 lPC can only be applied to situations wherein an offence 
has taken place and the accused did some act towards screening the offenders 
and more importantly destroying or tampering with the evidence and as to 
whether Section 201 lPC would be applicable when no offence was established 
to have been committed. 
Appellant-State has contended that evidence of PW 26 establishes that 
the accused persons A-3 and A-4 had thrown the body of the deceased to fire; 
and that there was no question of exercising the right of private defence vis- . 
a-vis the deceased and, therefOre, the order passed by the High Court cannot 
D 
E 
be maintained. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. In the present case, there was no evidence on record to 
attribute knowledge of the commission of offence to the accused. Therefore, 
it was held that Section 201 IPC cannot be applied. (Para 5) (761-F-GJ 
G 
V.L. Tresa v. State of Kera/a, (2001) 3 SCC 549 and Sou. Vijaya@Baby 
v. State of Maharashtra, (2003] 8 SCC 296, relied on. 
757 
H 
·-..:, 
STATEOFKARNATAKAv. MADESHA[PASAYAT,J.] 
759 
"21. But there can scarcely be any doubt that she must have A 
witnessed the murder of her husband lying next to her on a 
charpai. Shibbi who was at a distance of 18 feet was roused by 
the sound of a sword attack. Kalawati must have woken up also 
at least during the course of the assault if not at its commencement, 
several injuries having been inflicted in succession. When Shibbi B 
woke up, Kalawati's bed was empty, and she was found in a room 
nearby and not at the place of occurrence. She trotted out an 
elaborate story of dacoity, which cannot be accepted as tru~. 
Even if, in terror she ran away from her bed and stood at a 
distance, she is almost sure to have known who was the offender, 
unless he had his face muffled. The first version she gave to the C 
police head constable when he appeared on the scene immediately 
after the occurrence is, we think, false, and we are of opinion that 
she knew or believed it to be false. The borderline between 
abetment of the offence and giving false information to screen 
the off ender is rather thin in her case, but it is prudent to err on 
the safe side, and hold her guilty only of an offence under D 
Section 201 Penal Code, as the learned Sessions Judge did." 
xx 
xx 
xx 
11. Section 201 IPC reads as below: 
"201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving fats~ E 
information to screen offender- Whoever, knowing or having reason 
to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence 
of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of 
screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention 
gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or F 
believes to be false, 
(if a capital offence) shall, if the offence which he knows or believes 
to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with 
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; 
G 
(if punishable with imprisonment for life) and if the offence is 
punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which 
may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 
description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also 
be liable to fine; 
H 
760 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
(if punishable with less than ten. years' imprisonment) and if the 
offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending 
to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description 
provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth 
part of the longest term of the imprisonm_ent provided for the offence, 
or with fine, or with both." 
12. Having re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.