CHAPTER II

DEFINITION
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 1 deals with the punishment for causing the
disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender. The section
states that if someone is knowing or having a reason to believe that an offense was committed
causes the disappearance of the evidence shall be punished under this section. Moreover, the
section also states that giving false information related to the crime or to help the offender
invade law is also punishable under this section.

Two Offenses

Section 201 deals with two offenses which are:-

1. Causing the disappearance of an offence committed, with the intention of screening

the offender from legal punishment.
2. Giving false information respecting an offence committed with the intention of
screening the offender from legal punishment

INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 201

The Section2 requires:

1. An offence has been committed;

2. The accused knows or has reason to believe that the offence has been committed;
3. With such knowledge or belief the accused has:
a. Caused any evidence of the commission of the offence to disappears, or
b. Given any information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be
false; and
4. The accused has done so with the intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment.

1
Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
2
Ibid

1
COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE

One of the important ingredients which constitute the offence of causing disappearance of
evidence is commission of a principal offence, commission of offence is sine non qua that is
it is an essential condition or a thing which is necessary.

In the case of Palvinder Kaur vs the State of Punjab 3 , the wife committed the murder of
the husband with her boyfriend due to her extramarital affair with him. So the wife and her
boyfriend have put husband’s body in the trolley and throw it into the well. After one month
when his body was found in post mortem only Potassium cyanide is found and nothing else.
They both are charged under Section 302 and 201. But there was no evidence which can
prove the prosecution that the murder is done by wife with the help of his boyfriend.

So the outcome was that as the principal offence under Section 302 was unable to establish
due to which consequently under Section 201 was not establish either because the
commission of an offence is sine non qua( essential condition). 

GIVING FALSE INFORMATION AND/OR CAUSING

DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE

Whenever a person knows or has the reason to believe that an offence has been committed
and he gives information knowing it to be false or misleading, and/or causes the
disappearance of any evidence so as to screen the offender from the punishment , commits an
offence under section 201 of the IP,1860.

In the case of, Kodali Puran Chandra Rao vs Public Prosecutor 4, There was a river in a
village in which floating dead body of a woman was found and 2 km away from that river
there was a lake in which another body was found. The Investigation officer made up a story
that two prostitutes came to the village and they both were victims of rape following which
they committed suicide and without post mortem, he made the report of the case and
cremated both of them.

When he was called to report to the higher authorities he gave them false information and
when the matter was referred to the Supreme Court, it was held that although there is no
3
1952 AIR 354
4
1975 AIR 1925

2
definite evidence on investigating authorities it can be said that they have given false
information and a prima facie established based on the facts and therefore the police officer
is held guilty under Section 201 for giving false information.

These elements may help prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. The
terminology of the offence where word- ‘whoever’ extends to not only accused who screens
the main offender but also in some cases main offender who have committed the offence and
then also disappeared the evidences, as court may charge the offender for both the offences
separately. Prosecution had to prove that accused already aware or had reason to believe that
offence had been committed. The offence under section 201 is non- cognizable, bailable but
not compoundable.5

PUNISHMENT
The punishment under Section 2016 is divided into three parts depending upon the severity of
the offense committed for which the evidence disappearance was caused, or false information
was given.7

1. An offense punishable with death- If the accused is guilty under Section 201 and the
crime in respect to that is punishable with death, the punishment is imprisonment
ranging up to seven years with fine.

This is a Bailable, non-cognizable and non-compoundable offense triable by Court of

Session.

2. An offense punishable with imprisonment for life- If the accused is guilty under

Section 201 and the crime in respect to that is punishable with imprisonment for life,
the punishment is imprisonment ranging up to three years with fine.

This is a bailable, non-cognizable and non-compoundable offense which can be put

into trial by the Magistrate of the first class.

3. Offense punishable not less than ten years imprisonment- If the accused is guilty
under Section 201, and the crime in respect to that is punishable with imprisonment

5
http://www.shareyouressays.com
6
Supra
7
https://easyadvocacy.com/article/Punishment-for-causing-the-disappearance-of-evidence-in-IPC

3
 term, not more than ten years, the punishment is one-fourth of the maximum
imprisonment with or without fine.

CHAPTER III

CASE ANALYSIS

This chapter will deal with Case Laws relating to the subject.

Asar Mohammad v. State of U.P.8

MATERIAL FACTS

 That, Shababul had provided information to the Police against the accused persons
that their stepmother Zahida and step brother Ishlam had gone missing since two
months for which no missing report had been lodged by them. No missing report was
lodged by the accused for unstated reasons.
 Later, On enquiring with Accused no. 1, it was confessed that he along with the other
two accused persons namely, Appellant no. 2 and Appellant no. 3 had committed their
murder thereafter disposing their bodies off into the septic tank situated at the
backyard of their own house leading the police to the same.
 On conduction of post mortem, it was revealed that the death of both Zahida and
Ishlam was due to Asphyxia ( fracture of hyoid bone) which had occurred a month
back. 
 The High court in its judgement noted that it was a case of circumstance evidence but
keeping in view the facts and circumstances established held that it would not fall
within the purview of the rarest of rare cases.
 The court commuted the sentence to that of imprisonment for life thereby partly
allowing the appeal of the accused.

ISSUE

 Could the accused be extricated from offence under section 201 IPC, as they could
not be convicted under 302 IPC ?

8
C.R.A. 1617 of 2011

4
ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANT

 It was submitted that the case consists of manifest errors and evidence as such
produced falls short of quality evidence required for recording guilt such as Motive
behind commission of crime, evidence with respect to identification of the two dead
bodies
 It is also argued that the reports prepared by the police during investigation were
tailored to favour prosecution. Thus the hypothesis on which the prosecution case
rests stands unsubstantiated and as such the guilt recorded cannot be sustained either
on facts or law.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT

 The counsel for the state stuck to the high court verdict on upholding the conviction
as guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt pointing towards the
involvement of the accused in the said crime and the motive being not established due
to the witnesses turning hostile thus submitting that the appeal be dismissed.

DECISION OF THE COURT

 The Supreme Court, on perusal of the record, held that as far as Appellant 1 was
concerned, no error could be found with the judgment of upholding conviction and
order of sentence passed by the High Court against him. 
 The court held that, as for appellants 2 and 3, there was no such evidence as to prove
the offence of murder against them beyond a reasonable doubt. It was reiterated that
confession an accused, by itself cannot form the basis for conviction of the co-
accused.
 Further, however, the Court held that the fact that they could not be convicted for
offence punishable under Section 302 does not extricate them from the offence under
Section 201 for causing the disappearance of evidence.

5
  The court also stated that the witnesses becoming hostile and the prosecution not able
to establish the factum of motive cannot be the basis to doubt the correctness of the
finding of guilt recorded by the two courts against the accused on the basis of other
proved circumstances as held in Nika Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.9
 Consequently, the court passed the judgement dismissing the appeal of accused Asar
(Appellant no.1) , holding him liable under Section 302 IPC and that of the other two
accused persons namely Asraf (Appellant no.2) and Akhtar (Appellant no.3) be
partially allowed to acquit them of charges under Section 302 IPC thus holding them
guilty for conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC
respectively.

ANALYSIS

In this case, it was noted by the Supreme Court that no efforts were made by Appellants 2
and 3 to trace the victims nor did they think it necessary to report that fact to the local
police. No explanation whatsoever was offered as to why they did not report about the
sudden disappearance. Even though they could not be made liable for the murder for want
of legal evidence in that regard, they would certainly be guilty of having committed
offence under Section 201 as established from proved circumstances coupled with their
abject failure to provide any explanation, much less cogent explanation, about their
conduct.

Further, it held that in the cases of circumstantial evidence, the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt has to be proved by the prosecution and also a mere
confession by a co accused against another co accused cannot be the basis to proceed
against unless there is something produced to indicate their involvement in the
commission of the crime.

9
1972 AIR 2077

6
 Dinesh Kumar Kalidas v. State of Gujrat10

MATERIAL FACTS

 On 26/12/1990 the wife of appellant committed suicide by hanging inside her room ,
she left a suicide note wherein she had taken the entire blame on herself, the last rites
were attended by the father and the brother of the deceased, although no post-mortem
was conducted by the relatives.
 After a time of three months, a complaint was filed by the father or the deceased
before the judicial magistrate at Kadi on 01/04/1991.
 Post investigation, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 498A
11
and Section 201 of IPC. The appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section
498A of the IPC but conviction under Section 201 of IPC was maintained.
 The High Court in appeal maintained the appellant’s conviction under Section 201 of
IPC.

ISSUE

 Whether the conviction under Section 201 of IPC could have been maintained while
acquitting appellant of the main offence under Section 498A of the IPC?

ARGUMENTS FOR APPELLANT

 The learned counsel has raised many contentions based on merits, further the
appellant has argued that maintainability of the conviction under section 201 of the
IPC when he had been acquitted of the main offence Cruelty i.e. section 498A of the
IPC.
 Further, it was argued that the Sessions Court had taken note of the suicide note left
by the deceased wherein she had taken the entire blame on herself and that the High
Court was not justified in maintaining the conviction under Section 201 of IPC only
on the ground that no communication was given to the police and that the post-
mortem had not been performed.

10
Criminal Appeal No. 265-266 Of 2018
11
Section 498A IPC, 1860

7
ARGUMENTS FOR RESPONDENT

 The counsel for the state argued that the fact that appellant has not undertaken the
process of Post-mortem, has not declared the facts to the police and could not even
perform the last rites of her wife, points toward the fact that he has failed in his duty
as a husband and his distant behaviour with his wife is harassing and torturous, which
proves mental harassment upon the deceased, hence he should be guilty of the crime.

DECISION OF THE COURT

 The Bench observed that Section 201 of 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
disappearance of evidence and such act of disappearance has been done with the
intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.
 With reference to the facts of the instant case, the Bench opined that the only ground
for maintaining the conviction under Section 201 of IPC was that the appellant did not
give intimation to the police of the unnatural death of his wife and that no post-
mortem was conducted.
 The Court while elaborating on this point made reference to landmark judgments 12
and stated that in the instant case, the prosecution failed to satisfy the ingredients
under Section 201 of the IPC.
 Further, the court referred to Hanuman and others v. State of Rajasthan13to hold that
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.
 In view of the aforesaid, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the
offence under Section 201 of IPC.
12
Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra
13
1994 Supp (2) SCC 39

8
ANALYSIS

In the present case, the Supreme Court has elaborated on the offence under Section 201 of
IPC and held that the mere fact that the deceased allegedly died an unnatural death could not
be sufficient to bring home a charge under Section 201 of 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.

Further, it was also discussed whether a conviction under section 201 can be maintained
independently, which is in the affirmative. It was also discussed that 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. It was observed that the only ground
for maintaining the conviction of the appellant under S 201 of IPC was the he did not
intimate the police regarding the unnatural death of his wife and further there was also no
Post-mortem conducted before the last rites were performed. The mere fact that the deceased
allegedly died an unnatural death could not be sufficient to bring home a charge under
Section 20114 of the IPC and hence he was acquitted.

14
Hanuman and others v. State of Rajasthan (1994 Supp (2) SCC 39)

9
 CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION

Based on the criminal jurisprudence not only the person who has committed a crime is guilty
but also the person who conspired to complete the crime is guilty, section 201 of Indian Penal
Code deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to
screen offender, where a person cause disappearance of the evidence with intention to screen
the offender from legal punishment.

Further, in many cases it is seen that the accused are convicted of the principal offence and
also of S 201 even when no such evidence as to prove an offence against them beyond a
reasonable doubt exists, which raises concerns but in cases of circumstantial evidence, the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt has to be proved by the prosecution.
Although, it was observed that the Section 201 IPC can be independently laid and conviction
can be maintained too, but only when the prosecution is able to establish and fulfil the
ingredients of this section.

10
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF CASES

1. Palvinder Kaur vs the State of Punjab 1952 AIR 354

2. Kodali Puran Chandra Rao vs Public Prosecutor 1975 AIR 1925
3. Asar Mohammad v. State of U.P. C.R.A. 1617 of 2011
4. Nika Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1972 AIR 2077
5. Dinesh Kumar Kalidas v. State of Gujrat C.R.A. No. 265-266 Of 2018
6. Hanuman and others v. State of Rajasthan1994 Supp (2) SCC 39

STATUTES REFERRED

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 36th Edition, Lexis Nexis
2. PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, 13th Edition, Butterworths

INTERNET SOURCES

 https://easyadvocacy.com/article/Punishment-for-causing-the-disappearance-of-evidence-in-
IPC
 http://www.shareyouressays.com
 https://www.legitquest.com/case/dinesh-kumar-kalidas-patel-v-the-state-of-gujarat/B17E3
 https://www.legitquest.com/case/asar-mohammad--v-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh/105BA1

11