V. L. TRESA versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 09-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

V.L. TRESA 
11. 
STATE OF KERALA 
FEBRUARY 9, 2001 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 201, 302-Murder of husband po/rayed 
as suicide and the weapon used was concealed-Trial Court acquitted 
appellant in the principal offence, but convicted for causing disappearance 
A 
B 
of evidence-High Court upheld the findings, bl// reduced the sentence-On C 
appeal Held, mere suspicion is not enough, and there must be cogent evidence 
that accused having knowledge of the offence has caused disappearance of 
evidence in order to screen the offender-Conviction upheld, as only the 
appellant had knowledge of the circumstances of the death and her testimony 
has throughout been disbelieved-Appellant had made a deliberate a/tempt D 
to screen the offender causing disappearance of evidence-High Court has 
been lenient while reducing the sentence, however since there is no cross 
appeal, the judgment is confirmed in the background of the contextual facts. 
Constitution of India-Article 136-Concurrent findings of evidence-
Re-appreciation (){-Impermissible at this stage, especially when no cross E 
appeal has been filed to enhance the sentence. 
Appellant was suspected for the murder of her husband. She took the 
defence that a crowbar hit his head accidentally, while she was preventing 
him from committing suicide. She then hid the crowbar and told everybody 
that the deceased had committed suicide. Trial Court acquitted her on the F 
charge of murder as the prosecution could not prove the case beyond 
reasonable doubt. It, however, convicted her under Section 201 !PC. High 
Court reduced the sentence of 5 years, rigorous imprisonment to I year. 
Hence this appeal. 
Appellant contended that the offence under Section 201 IPC could not G 
form the basis of any conviction, when the principal offence is not proved. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Having regard to the language used in Section 201 IPC, H 
973 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I] I S.C.R. 
A mere suspicion would not be sufficient There must be available on record 
cogent evidence that the accused has caused some evidence to disappear in 
order to screen known or unknown offender. The fore-most necessity being 
that the accused must have the knowledge or have reason to believe that such 
an offence has been committed. [979-GI 
B 
Palvinder Kaur v. Stae of Punjab, AIR [19521 SC 354; Roshan Lal v. 
State of Punjab, AIR 11965[ SC 1413 and Kalawati v. The State of Himacha/ 
Pradish, AIR [19531SC131, relied on. 
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 119731 SCC (Crl.) 11048; 
C Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, 119831 SCC (Crl.) 254 and Prem Thakur v. 
State of Puniab, 119831 SCC (Crl.) 88, referred to. 
2. Trial Court concluded that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond 
reasonable doubt and it is on this score that the High Court concluded that 
even if the fatal injury was innicted by somebody else, the appellant is liable 
D to be convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC, as she alone saw the 
deceased commit or attempt to commit suicide. They were living together 
with a minor child. Therefore, the circumstances of the death would be in 
their special knowledge, and if the child was asleep, then she would have 
alone witnessed the action. She had told everybody that the deceased fell down 
on the blunt object, while attempting to commit suicide, which caused his 
E death. There is no doubt that those injuries caused the death and they are 
described in the post mortem report. However, the High Court did not find 
any fault with the analysis of evidence done by the trial court while acquitting 
her for the principal offence. Therefore there is no need to disturb the 
concurrent finding at this stage. [980-D-E-F-GI 
F 
3. Both the courts below disbelieved the evidence of the appellant and 
the falsity of information given by her can warrant a punishment under Section 
201, since only she had all the information and there was a deliberated attempt 
to screen the offender from legal punishment. [983-EI 
G 
Duvvur Dasratharammareddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 11971[ 3 
sec 247, distinguished. 
4. The High Court has been lenient in the matter of reducing the 
sentence but since there is no cross appeal by the State, there is no need to 
proceed with matter, except confirming, in the contextual facts, the judgment 
H of the High Court. [983-F-GI 
V.L. TRESA v. STATE OF KERA LA [BANER.IEE,.1.] 
975 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE J

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