IN THE HIGH COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, SANGRUR

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF PUNJAB APPELLANT

1
VERSUS

RESPONDENT

2
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

SUBNITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

MR. ANTERPREET SINGH HARJOT SINGH

3
MOOT COURT INCHARGE B.A.LL.B (7THSEM)

ROLL NO – 16113

SESSION – 2019-20

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr. No. TOPIC PAGE NO.

5
1. Proposition 3

2. List of Abbreviations 4

3. Index of Authorities 5

4. Statement of Jurisdiction 6

5. Statement of Facts 7

6
6. List of documents 8

7. Site Plan 9

8. Relevant Sections 10

9. Arguments Advanced 12-13

10. Prayer 14

7
11. Authorities 16-26

8
9
 PROPOSITION

Dinesh and Sonal were married on 25.02.2010. After the marriage the relations between both
the families were cordial. Dinesh had even helped father of tonal and gave him Rs.1 lakh. On
26.12.2010, Sonal was found hanging in her room. A suicide note was left by the deceased
wherein she had taken the entire blame of suicide on herself.

10
The information was conveyed to the family of the deceased but the accused did not give
intimation to the police of the unnatural death and therefore no post-mortem was conducted.
The father and brother of the deceased, who is a doctor by profession, attended the last rites.

Thereafter it came to the knowledge of deceased's father that Dinesh was not spending much
time with her daughter so there might be some foul play in the unnatural death of her
daughter. Therefore, the father of the deceased filed a complaint before the Judicial

11
Magistrate against Dinesh on 01.04.2011. The same was investigated, and the appellant along
with three others was charged under-Sections 304B, 306, 498A and 201 read with Section
120B of the IPC.

The case of prosecution is that Dinesh had kept Sonal in a bungalow and had most of the time
remained away from her which caused mental depression to the deceased and as a result of
this she committed the suicide by hanging on 26.12.2010.

12
 Along with the appellant, three other persons also faced the trial. By judgment dated
12.09.2014, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant only under Section 201 of the IPC but
acquitted the three others.

Thus aggrieved, the accused filed the appeal.

Argue.

13
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
14
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Cri L J CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

Cr.P.C CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

HC HIGH COURT

Hon’ble HONOURABLE
15
PW PROSECUTION WITNESS

AW APPELLANT WITNESS

SC SUPREME COURT

U/S UNDER SECTION

V/s VERSUS
16
17
18
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Referred

 Dinesh Kumar Kaidas Patel V/s State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 549
 Hanuman Prasad & Ors V/s State of Rajasthan, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 267

19
 Statute Referred

 Indian Penal Code, 1860

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

20
21
22
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

An appeal has been filed under section 374 Cr.P.C against the judgment passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, JMIC, Sangrur which convicted the appellant under

23
section 201 I.P.C which deals with Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or
giving false information to screen offender. Hence the Court of Sessions, Sangrur has
jurisdiction to try this case under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

24
25
26
27
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:

28
1. The prosecution case is as follow Dinesh and Sonal were married on 25.02.2010.
After the marriage the relations between both the families were cordial. Dinesh had
even helped father of tonal and gave him Rs.1 lakh.
2. On 26.12.2010, Sonal was found hanging in her room. A suicide note was left by the
deceased wherein she had taken the entire blame of suicide on herself.
3. The information was conveyed to the family of the deceased but the accused did not
give intimation to the police of the unnatural death and therefore no post-mortem was
29
 conducted. The father and brother of the deceased, who is a doctor by profession,
attended the last rites.
4. Thereafter it came to the knowledge of deceased's father that Dinesh was not spending
much time with her daughter so there might be some foul play in the unnatural death
of her daughter.
5. Therefore, the father of the deceased filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate
against Dinesh on 01.04.2011. The same was investigated, and the appellant along
30
 with three others was charged under-Sections 304B, 306, 498A and 201 read with
Section 120B of the IPC.
6. The case of prosecution is that Dinesh had kept Sonal in a bungalow and had most of
the time remained away from her which caused mental depression to the deceased and
as a result of this she committed the suicide by hanging on 26.12.2010.

31
7. Along with the appellant, three other persons also faced the trial. By judgment dated
12.09.2014, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant only under Section 201 of the
IPC but acquitted the three others.
8. Thus aggrieved, the accused filed the appeal

32
 LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. Suicide note
2. Site Plan of the Bungalow

33
34
35
36
 SITE PLAN [NAKSHA]

PLACE OF OCCURRENCE:

37
38
39
40
41
 RELEVENT SECTIONS

Section 201- Indian Penal Code, 1860

Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false 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

42
intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any
information respecting the offence which he knows or 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;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.—and if the offence is punishable with
1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be
43
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
and shall also be liable to fine;
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 imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine,
or with both.
44
Section 27- Indian Evidence Act, 1872

How much of information received from accused may be prove.—Provided that, when
any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person
accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information,

45
whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered,
may be proved.

POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED

46
 Whether the non-intimation of the unnatural death of the deceased to the police by
the accused and failure to conduct postmortem justified as a ground for the offence
under section 201 of IPC?

 Whether the accused could be held guilty U/s 201 of I.P.C even if the accused is
acquitted from the offence from the main offences?
47
48
49
50
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

51
Q. - Whether the non-intimation of the unnatural death of the deceased to the
police by the accused and failure to conduct postmortem justified as a ground for
the offence under section 201 of IPC?

A. - No, the non-intimation of the unnatural death of the deceased to the police by the
accused and failure to conduct postmortem justified as a ground for the offence under
section 201 of IPC.
52
In this instant case, the family of the accused did inform the family of the deceased
about the death of their daughter and the last rites of the deceased were attended by
the father and brother of the deceased. The accused cannot be convicted merely on the
basis that the accused did not intimate the family of the deceased about the death of
the deceased and failed to conduct the post-mortem of the deceased. The same has
been held in the case cited as (2018) 3 SCC 313, whereby on the similar facts and

53
circumstances, the Honble Supreme Court has held, in the relevant portion of the
Judgment as under:-
“We are afraid, the High Court is not justified in maintaining the conviction
under Section 201 only on the ground that no communication was given to the police
and that the post-mortem had not been performed. The Trial Court has taken note of
the fact that the father of the deceased and her brother (who is a doctor) had attended
the last rites of the deceased and neither of them had any complaint or suspicion at
54
that time of the commission of any offence. The Sessions Court has also taken note of
the suicide note left by the deceased wherein she had taken the entire blame on
herself. Yet the court has taken the view, from the consideration we have extracted
from paragraph-16 of the Sessions court judgment, that the deceased might have been
in a state of depression having remained alone for most of the time and it amounted to
torture. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 498A by the
High Court, and rightly so. The prosecution has also not been able to satisfy the
55
ingredients under Section 201 of the IPC. Neither the Sessions Court nor the High
Court has any case that there is any intentional omission to give information by the
appellant to the police. It is also to be noted that prosecution has no case
under Section 202 of the IPC against the appellant.”
Even in this case, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused under
main offences. Thus, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence U/s 201 IPC
merely for the failure to intimate and conduct the post-mortem.
56
 Q. Whether the mere fact that the deceased allegedly died an unnatural death
could not be sufficient to bring home a charge under Section 201 of the IPC

A. No, the mere fact that the deceased allegedly died an unnatural death could not be
sufficient to bring home the charge under section 201 of the IPC.

57
The prosecution in this instant case has failed to establish the guilt of the accused and
moreover the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence and
suspicions that the accused appellant did not spent enough time with the deceased
which has not been proven by the prosecution in any manner. The conviction by the
learned Sessions court was solely based on circumstantial evidence thus the
prosecution fails to establish a clear cut case and thus the case has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
58
Moreover, in the ruling of the Supreme Court cited as 2009(1) RCR (Criminal)
267, the Hon’ble Court has held as under:-
“The mere fact that the deceased allegedly died an unnatural death could not be
sufficient to bring home a charge under Section 201 of the IPC. Unless the
prosecution was able to establish that the accused person knew or had reason to
believe that an offence has been committed and had done something causing the
offence of commission of evidence to disappear, he cannot be convicted.”
59
In the instant case and the facts at hand, the prosecution has not established that the
accused has indeed committed the offence of disappearance of evidence. Thus the
accused shall not be held liable for disappearance of evidence as alleged by the
respondents.
The case of the prosecution merely rests on the circumstantial evidence as established
before the court. The accused could not be held liable for and offence u/s 201 of the

60
IPC unless the prosecution establishes that the accused has committed the offence
and knowingly gave false information to screen the offender.
In this case no offence has been committed as the accused persons have been
acquitted by the learned Sessions Court. There is no clear evidence on record to show
that the accused disappeared the evidence to screen the real offender.
It is therefore respectfully prayed that the accused has not committed the offence of
disappearance of evidence. Thus the prosecution fails to establish the guilt of the
61
accused from all the facts, material evidence on the record and the cited case laws,
therefore the accused should be acquitted from the offence U/s 201 of The Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

SUBMITTED BY:

62
 HARJOT SINGH
B.A.LL.B VIIth SEMESTER

63
64
PRAYER

65
Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Appellant humbly pray before this Court that it may be
pleased to adjudge and declare that:
The Appellant is not guilty under section 201 of IPC because he has not committed the
offence of disappearance of evidence. All the witnesses and evidence are in favour of
appellant. So I request this Hon’ble Court to Acquit the accused persons and set aside the
judgment of Judicial Magistrate First Class.
66
Or pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of equity, justice and good
conscience and for this Act of kindness of Your Lordships the respondent shall as duty bound
ever pray.

67
 Counsel for the Appellant

68
69
 CASES REFERRED

1. (2001) 3 SCC 549

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

70
 Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 12 February, 2018
Author: Kurian
Bench: K Joseph

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

71
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 265-266 OF 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos. 1815-1816 of 2016)

DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL ... APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS
72
 THE STATE OF GUJARAT ... RESPONDENT (S)
JUDGMENT
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Mehsana (State of Gujarat) for
offences under Sections 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
as the IPC). A sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a penalty of Rs.1,000/- with a
73
default sentence of three Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
months was awarded under Section 498A and six months and Date: 2018.02.12 16:54:58 IST
Reason: Rs.500/- with a default sentence of one month for the offence under Section 201 of
the IPC.
3. This is a case where the appellants wife committed suicide by hanging. The incident took
place on 26.12.1990. The information was conveyed to the family of the deceased. The father
and brother of the deceased, who is a doctor by profession, attended the last rites. After more
74
than three months, the father of the deceased filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate
at Kadi on 01.04.1991. The same was investigated, and the appellant was charged under
Sections 304B, 306, 498A and 201 read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Along with the appellant, seven other persons also faced the
trial. By judgment dated 12.09.1995, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under
Sections 498A and 201 of the IPC but acquitted the seven others.

75
4. The appeals filed in 1995 were heard in the year 2015 and, as per the impugned judgment,
the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC but conviction
under Section 201 of the IPC was maintained. Thus aggrieved, the appellant is before this
Court.
5. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the
State.
6. Several contentions have been raised on merits. That apart, the appellant has also raised a
76
Question of law as to whether the conviction under Section 201 of the IPC could have been
maintained while acquitting him of the main offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
7. Learned Counsel have placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Palvinder Kaur v.
State of Punjab1, Smt. Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh2, and
Suleman Rehiman Mulani and another v. State of Maharashtra.
8. In Palvinder Kaur (supra), this Court held as follows:

77
14. In order to establish the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, it is essential
to prove that an offence has been committed, mere suspicion that it has been committed is not
sufficient, that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been
committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from
legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information
respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false. AIR 1952

78
SC 354 AIR 1953 SC 131 AIR 1968 SC 829 The conviction in this case was ultimately set
aside on the aforementioned legal position and the facts.
9. The Constitution Bench decision in Kalawati (supra) may not be of much assistance in this
case since the facts are completely different. The co-accused was convicted under Section
302 of the IPC for the main offence, and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case,
this Court deemed it fit to convict Kalawati only under Section 201 of the IPC.

79
10. Relying on Palvinder Kaur (supra), this Court in Suleman Rehiman (supra), made the
following observation:
6. The conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC depends on the sustainability of the
conviction of Appellant 1 under Section 304-A IPC. If Appellant 1 was rightly convicted
under that provision, the conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC on the facts found
cannot be challenged. But on the other hand, if the conviction of Appellant 1 under Section
304-A IPC cannot be sustained, then, the second appellants conviction under Section 201 IPC
80
will have to be set aside, because to establish the charge under Section 201, the prosecution
must first prove that an offence had been committed not merely a suspicion that it might have
been committed and that the accused knowing or having reason to believe that such an
Offence had been committed, and with the intent to screen the offender from legal
punishment, had caused the evidence thereof to disappear. The proof of the commission of an
offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the offence under Section 201 IPC see the
decision of this Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab. It is necessary to note that the
81
reason for acquittal under Section 201 in the above case was that there was no evidence to
show that the rash and negligent act of appellant No.1 caused the death of the deceased.
Hence, the court acquitted appellant No. 2 under Section 201. The observation at paragraph 6
has to be viewed and analysed in that background. 11. In Ram Saran Mahto and another v.
State of Bihar4, this Court discussed Kalawati (supra) and Palvinder Kaur (supra). It has been
held at paragraphs-13 to 15 that conviction under the main offence is not necessary to convict
the offender under Section 201 of the IPC. To quote:
82
13. It is not necessary that the offender himself should have been found guilty of the main
offence for the purpose of convicting him of offence under Section 201. Nor is it absolutely
necessary that somebody else should have been found guilty of the main offence.
Nonetheless, it is imperative that the prosecution should have established two premises. The
first is that an offence has been committed and the second is that the accused knew about it or
he had reasons to believe the commission of that offence. Then and then alone the

83
prosecution can succeed, provided the remaining postulates of the offence are also
established.
(1999) 9 SCC 486
14. The above position has been well stated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court way back in
1952, in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab:
In order to establish the charge under Section 201, Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an
offence has been committed, mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient that
84
the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the
requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes
the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing
or having reason to believe the same to be false.
15. It is well to remind that the Bench gave a note of caution that the court should safeguard
itself against the danger of basing its conclusion on suspicions however strong they may be.
In Kalawati v. State of H.P a Constitution Bench of this Court has, no doubt, convicted an
85
accused under Section 201 IPC even though he was acquitted of the offence under Section
302. But the said course was adopted by this Court after entering the finding that another
accused had committed the murder and the appellant destroyed the evidence of it with full
knowledge thereof. In a later decision in Nathu v. State of U.P.
this Court has repeated the caution in the following words: (SCC p. 575, para 1) Before a
conviction under Section 201 can be recorded, it must be shown to the satisfaction of the

86
court that the accused knew or had reason to believe that an offence had been committed and
having got this knowledge, tried to screen the offender by disposing of the dead body.
12. In V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala5, this Court has discussed the essential ingredients of the
offenceunder Section 201 of the IPC at paragraph 12:
12. Having regard to the language used, the following ingredients emerge:
(I) committal of an offence;

87
(II) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to
believe that the main offence has been committed;
(III) person charged with the offence under Section 201 IPC should have caused
disappearance of evidence or should have given false information regarding the main offence;
and (IV) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from
legal punishment.

88
13. In Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra6, this Court discussed Kalawati (supra), Palvinder
Kaur (supra), Suleman Rehiman (supra) and V.L. Tresa (supra) among others. The essential
ingredients for conviction under Section 201 of the IPC have been discussed at paragraph 18:
18. The first paragraph of the section 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. To (2001) 3 SCC 549 (2007) 7 SCC 502 bring
home an offence under Section 201 IPC, the ingredients to be established are: (i) committal
89
of an offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the
knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with
the said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence; and (iv) the act should have
been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that
intention he should have given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed
to be false. It is plain that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the
primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly needs any emphasis that in order to bring home
90
an offence under Section 201 IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record
cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to
believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to
disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown. In Sou Vijaya @ Baby v. State
of Maharashtra7, though this Court held that the decision in V.L. Tresa (supra) was of no
assistance to the State in the particular facts, it re-iterated that there is no quarrel with the

91
legal principle that notwithstanding acquittal with reference to the offence under Section 302
IPC, conviction under Section 201 is permissible, in a given case. (2003) 8 SCC 296
14. The decisions in Sou Vijaya (supra) and V.L. Tresa (supra) were noticed in State
of Karnataka v. Madesha8.
While the appeal of the State was dismissed, this Court in unmistakeable terms held that:

92
9. It is to be noted that there can be no dispute that Section 201 would have application even
if the main offence is not established in view of what has been stated in V.L. Tresa and Sou.
Vijaya cases
15. Thus, the law is well-settled that a charge under Section 201 of the IPC can be
independently laid and conviction maintained also, in case the prosecution is able to establish
that an offence had been committed, the person charged with the offence had the knowledge
or the reason to believe that the offence had been committed, the said person has caused
93
disappearance of evidence and such act of disappearance has been done with the intention of
screening the offender from legal punishment. Mere suspicion is not sufficient, it must be
proved that the accused knew or had a reason to believe that the offence has been committed
and yet he caused the evidence to disappear so as to screen the offender. The offender may be
either himself or any other person. (2007) 7 SCC 35

94
16. Having thus analysed the legal position, we shall revert to the factual matrix and see
whether the conviction in the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 201 of the
IPC could be sustained.
17. An analysis of the judgment of the Sessions Judge in this context would be quite relevant.
At paragraph-16, having analysed the facts and having referred to the minute details of the
alleged commission of the offence, the court has entered the following finding:

95
16....In this manner this entire case suggest that the behaviour of the accused no. 1 was very
suspicious. He has not undertaken the process for the PM of the dead body. He has not
declared the facts before the police and the last rites of the dead body have been performed
before the maternal family reaches from Ahmedabad. In this manner, while considering the
facts on record I come at a conclusion that the accused no. 1 has failed in his duty as a
husband. The husband has kept the wife in a bungalow and has most of the time remained
away from her. This is very torturing and harassing for a wife. Thus as per my opinion it is
96
proved by the prosecution on the basis of the facts on record and especially the chit at 0-1 that
there was mental harassment upon the deceased Lila, from the side of the accused no.1. The
fact remains that the accused no.1 has not informed the police even though an unnatural
death has occurred and the last rites have also been performed without performing the post-
mortem and without informing the police.

97
Thus as per my opinion the accused no. 1 is prima facie guilty of the crime under section
498(a) and 201 of the IPC and therefore the prosecution has proved the case partly in
affirmation.
18. The High Court, in appeal, however, took the view that the appellant was not liable to be
convicted under Section 498A of the IPC. However, his conviction under Section 201 of the
IPC was liable to be maintained. To quote:

98
5... We have re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of the latest
decisions of the Honble Apex Court. Taking into consideration the fact that the complaint
was lodged almost after a period of four months of the incident in question, the fact remains
is that no post mortem was performed of the deceased. Even if the case of defence is
accepted, it was a premature and unnatural death and therefore the mandatory requirements
under the law, at least to inform the police of the death and to get the post mortem of the

99
deceased done, were not fulfilled. Admittedly, nothing has come on record to show that the
post mortem was carried out and/or the police complaint was immediately filed.
Considering the said aspect, we have all reasons to believe that the offence is made out under
section 201 of the IPC. However, so far as offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC
is concerned, we believe the contention of Mr. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate for the
accused No.1, that almost after a period of four months, the complaint was lodged and there
is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution qua cruelty being perpetrated
100
to the deceased for want of dowry and on the contrary, the accused No.1 had helped the
father of the deceased and gave Rs.1 lakh. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the learned trial judge has rightly convicted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable
under Section 201 of the IPC, however, has committed an error in holding conviction of the
accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and same is not
sustainable.

101
19. Thus, the only ground for maintaining the conviction under Section 201 of the IPC is that
the appellant did not give intimation to the police of the unnatural death and that no post-
mortem was conducted.
20. We are afraid, the High Court is not justified in maintaining the conviction under Section
201 only on the ground that no communication was given to the police and that the post-
mortem had not been performed. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the father of
the deceased and her brother (who is a doctor) had attended the last rites of the deceased and
102
neither of them had any complaint or suspicion at that time of the commission of any offence.
The Sessions Court has also taken note of the suicide note left by the deceased wherein she
had taken the entire blame on herself. Yet the court has taken the view, from the
consideration we have extracted from paragraph-16 of the Sessions court judgment, that the
deceased might have been in a state of depression having remained alone for most of the time
and it amounted to torture. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section
498A by the High Court, and rightly so. The Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel vs The State Of
103
Gujarat on 12 February, 2018 prosecution has also not been able to satisfy the ingredients
under Section 201 of the IPC. Neither the Sessions Court nor the High Court has any case
that there is any intentional omission to give information by the appellant to the police. It is
also to be noted that prosecution has no case under Section 202 of the IPC against the
appellant.
21. As held by this Court in Hanuman and others v. State of Rajasthan9, the mere fact that the

104
deceased allegedly died an unnatural death could not be sufficient to bring home a charge
under Section 201 of the IPC. Unless the prosecution was able to establish that the accused
person knew or had reason to believe that an offence has been committed and had done
something causing the offence of commission of evidence to disappear, he cannot be
convicted.
22. There is no such allegation against the appellant. The last rites of the deceased were
performed in the presence of the members of her family. They had no suspicion at that time
105
of the commission of any offence. The private complaint was lodged after more than three
months. There is no charge under 1994 Supp (2) SCC 39 Section 202 of the IPC of
intentionally omitting to give information of the unnatural death to the police. It is also not
the case of the complainant that he had requested for post-mortem of the body and that
intimation should have been given to the police before the last rites were performed.
23. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Sessions Court is not
justified in convicting the appellant under Section 201 of the IPC and the High Court
106
maintaining the same. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The conviction of the appellant
under Section 201 of the IPC is set aside.
..........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH) ...J.
(AMITAVA ROY) NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 12, 2018.

107
 2. 2009(1) RCR (CRIMINAL) 267
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hanuman Prasad & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 November, 2008
Author:. A Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma
108
 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1186 OF 2001
Hanuman Prasad and Ors. ....Appellants
Versus
109
 State of Rajasthan ....Respondent
(With Crl.A. NO. 799 of 2002)

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

110
1. In these appeals, challenge is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the
Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. Though the appellants were acquitted by the trial
Court, the High Court in appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan directed their conviction
for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
the `IPC') and each was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine
with default stipulation. In all there were 8 accused persons. Three of them who were
convicted by the trial Court namely, Dhruvendra Singh, Shivmuni @ Babua and Sushil
111
Kumar did not prefer any appeal before the High Court questioning their conviction.
However, the Trial Court acquitted the present appellants and in appeal filed by the State
their acquittal was set aside.
2. Background facts, as projected by the prosecution, in a nutshell, are as follows: On
6.10.1997 at about 4.10 p.m. the prosecutrix (PW-6) daughter of Nemchand (PW-4)
lodged a report Ex.P/9 before Kan Singh, Dy. SP, Raisingh Nagar District Sri
Ganganagar (PW-5) against 8 accused persons and one Vinod Sachdeva stating inter-alia
112
that her father Nemchand was under the employment of Indian Agriculture Farm and she
has two brothers and one elder sister. It was further stated in the report that in the month
of April, 1996 when she was going to her house, accused persons encircled her and took
her forcibly to the house of accused Shivmuni who was Chowkidar and when she tried to
make hue and cry she was beaten by them and she was offered water and after drinking
water she felt giddy and thereafter, she was raped by accused Dhruvendra Singh and rest
accused persons were flirting with her and when she came to her senses they told her that
113
what had happened and in case she would tell this incident to anybody, her brothers
would be killed. Thereafter, she came to her house. It was further stated in the report that
whenever she went to school, all accused persons used to take her to the house of
accused appellant Shivmuni and all accused persons Nos.1 to 8 used to commit rape on
her and this process remained continued for many times. It was further stated in the
report that when she was perturbed she was asked by her mother Panadevi (PW-3). Then
she unfolded the whole story to her mother and then her mother narrated the whole story
114
to her husband Nemchand (PW-4). It was further stated in the report that thereafter they
met Vinod Sachdeva, who told them that accused persons hailed from high family and if
they were enjoying with her, let them do so and he further told them that he would
arrange the marriage of the prosecutrix with accused Dhruvendra Singh. It was further
stated in the report that to rule out pregnancy she was given tablets for preventing
pregnancy and she was given Mala-D tablets also. This report was sent by Kan Singh
(PW-5) to Police Station Sri Vijyanagar, District Sri Ganganagar, where the case was
115
registered and regular FIR Ex.P-10 was chalked out and investigation was conducted by
Tajaram (PW-7) The High Court by the impugned judgment found that the acquittal so
far as the present appellants are concerned was not sustainable. It held that because of
broad language of Section 376(2)(g), the appellants were also liable to be convicted.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Section 376(2)(g) has no application
so far as the present appellants are concerned.

116
4. In order to bring in application of Section 376(2)(g) common intention to commit rape
is necessary and the evidence of the prosecutrix in court clearly shows that the appellants
did not have any intention to commit rape. In the statements recorded in terms of
Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') also,
that was the position.

117
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that a complete act is
not necessary. Mere presence would be sufficient to bring in application of Section 376
IPC.
6. A bare reading of the entire evidence of the prosecutrix goes to show that the
appellants were not involved in the act of rape. There is also nothing on evidence to show
that they shared common intention.

118
7. The important expression to attract Section 376(2)(g) is `common intention'. The
essence of the liability in terms of Section 376 (2) is the existence of common intention.
In animating the accused to do the criminal act in furtherance of such intention, the
principles of Section 34 IPC have clear application. In order to bring in the concept of
common intention it is to be established that there was simultaneously consensus of the
minds of the persons participating in the act to bring about a particular result. Common
intention is not the same or similar intention. It presupposes a prior meeting and pre-
119
arranged plan. In other words, there must be a prior meeting of minds. It is not necessary
that pre-consert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is necessary to be proved. The
common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as
between a number of persons which has to be gauzed on the facts and circumstances of
each case.

120
8. In the instant case no evidence was led to show that the appellants had a common
intention of committing rape on the victim. This aspect unfortunately has been lost sight
of by the High Court though the Trial Court has elaborately dealt with this aspect.
9. Above being the position the conviction as recorded by the High Court cannot stand
and is set aside. Appeals are allowed. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand
discharged.

121
.........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ..........................................J. (Dr.
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, November 18, 2008
***********************************************************************

122