SC orders caution during convictions for hiding evidence

8220;Nonetheless, it is imperative that the prosecution should have established two requirements 8212; the first being that an offence has been committed and the second being that the accused knew about it or he had reasons to believe the commission of that offence. Then and then alone the prosecution can succeed, provided the remaining postulates of the offence and also established,8221; the court observed.

The caution was sounded by a division bench comprising Justice K T Thomas and Justice M B Shah, while allowing an appeal against a judgement and order of the Patna High Court.

The body of a teenaged woman, Asha Kumari, recovered from a well near her nuptial home, was hastily cremated. For that incident her husband 8212; Kalpu Mahto and three others stood convicted of the offence under Section 201 IPC. Though the prosecution did not even venture to establish any other offence in respect of the death of the woman, the trial court passed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years on one of the convicted, while a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years was imposed on the remaining convicted persons. They appealed to the Patna High Court but failed.

8220;We cannot comprehend how the sessions court have escalated the conviction to the topmost layer of the offence for awarding the maximum sentence of imprisonment for seven years as the said upper limit is fixed only for one category of cases falling under Section 201 IPC.

8220;The sessions judge did not even advert to the possibility of the offence falling within the aforesaid top category though he had chosen to award the maximum sentence only one of the four convicted persons. The high court, while restating the sentence portion in its judgement seems to have committed an error in as much as it convicted all the four accused under Section 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each,8221; the Supreme Court observed in its judgement.

The first portion of Section 201 IPC, the court noted, contains the postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining three portions prescribe, three different tiers of punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each situation.

8220;The two indispensable ingredients for all the three tiers in Section 20 are 8212; the accused should have had knowledge that an offence has been committed or at least he should have had reasons to believe it, he should then have caused disappearance of the evidence of the commission of that offence. The prosecution cannot escape from establishing the aforesaid two basic ingredients for conviction of the accused under Section 201 IPC,8221; the court added.

The court said the gravest degree contemplated in Section 201 IPC was punishable with the maximum sentence of imprisonment for seven years. 8220;The minimum requirement for the offence to reach the said peak degree is that the offender should have caused disappearance of the evidence of another offence which is punishable with death and that should be established in addition to the above mentioned two basic ingredients.

Even if the two basics are established and the prosecution failed to establish the next requirement, the court cannot convict the accused for the highest tier specified in the section.

In the present case, all that the prosecution could establish, the court pointed out, was that dead body of Asha Kumari was recovered from the well situated in the compound of her marital home and that the cremation was hurried through after physically keeping her kith and kin away from the scene.

8220;No doubt, such a culpable hurry enkindles fumes of suspicion which can be regarded as an incriminating circumstance against those who showed such a haste. But that circumstance stands isolated and unconcatenated with any other cirucmstance,8221; court observed.

The court therefore held that the prosecution had not even attempted to show, much less to prove, that any offence had been committed by any one in respect of the death of Asha Kumari, which should have been the foundation for establishing the offence under Section 201 IPC.

8220;It now stands as an unfounded conviction and hence we have to interfere. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants. They are acquitted. We direct the appellants to be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required in any other case,8221; the court ordered.