Osan vs The State of Punjab

Gurnam Singh, J.—Osan son of Somerin son of Lodha, resident of Bharat Nagar, Amritsar, was tried for the offence u/s 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of Hanuman. He was acquitted of the charge u/s 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code but was convicted u/s 201, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that Hanuman deceased and his wife had come to Punjab to do labour in 1973. They stayed for five days at the house of Osan accused in Bharat Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar. According to the report u/s 173, Criminal Procedure Code, Osan and some other persons, who were living in that house, started having an evil eye on the wife of Hanuman. Hanuman deceased and his wife, thereafter, shifted to the house of Sarup Singh in the same locality.

On 9th October, 1973 at about 5 P.M. Osan accused came to the house of Hanuman and took him out for a stroll. Hanuman did not return during the night. Mst. Baundhan alias Krishna wife of Hanuman became suspicious and on the following morning she went to the house of the accused-appellant and enquired about her husband. The accused-appellant did not gave satifactory reply. Mst. Baundhan then narrated the incident to Naresh, P.W., who took her to Police Post Verka. Baundhan alias Krishna made her statement there which was sent to Police Station Saddar Amritsar and the case was registered. Assistant Sub-Inspector Sain Dass accompanied Naresh, P.W., in search of the accused-appellant. The appellant was not found present at his house. At about 6 P.M. when they were returning from Bharat Nagar, Naresh P.W., spotted the appellant, who was standing at the bus-stand on Batala road. Assistant Sub-Inspector Sain Dass apprehended the appellant in the presence of Chaman Lal Sarpanch. The appellant was wearing a pair of chappals, Ex. P 1/1-2, which were blood-stained. The chappals, Ex. P.1 /1-2, were taken into possession and turned into a sealed parcel. A.S.I. Sain Dass interrogated the appellant in the presence of Chaman Lal Sarpanch and Naresh. The appellant made disclosure statement. Exhibit P.M., to the effect that he had kept concealed the dead-body of Hanuman in the orchard of arcots in the area of village Tung Pain and that he could get the same recovered. The appellant then led the police party to that place and sot the dead-body of Hanuman recovered from there. The Assistant Sub-Inspector also took the blood-stained earth from the place where the dead-body of Hanuman was lying and turned the same into a sealed parcel. Blood-stained papers. Exhibits P.A. and P.B., were found in the rocket of the shirt of the deceased and the same were taken into possession and sealed. Mst. Baundhan was called and she identified the dead-body of her husband Hanuman. Inquest report was prepared and the dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead-body of Hanuman was performed by Dr. P.C. Singal. In all sixteen incised injuries were found on the dead-body. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The doctor further opined that the probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post-martam was within 42 hours. After necessary investigation of the case appellant was challaned. It may also be mentioned here that in the report u/s 173, Criminal Procedure Code, one Ram Nath has been shown as an absconder.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, disbelieved all the circumstances appearing against the appellant in connection with the offence u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, but relying upon the disclosure statement of the appellant and the recovery of the dead-body of Hanuman as a result of the same, convicted him u/s 201, Indian Penal Code.

The following are the ingredients of the offence u/s 201, Indian Penal Code:--

(1) that an offence has been committed ;

(2) that the accused, knew or had reason to believe ; that such an offence has been committed;

(3) that the accused caused evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false and

(4) that he caused the evidence to disappear with intent to screen the offender from legal punishment.

In the instant case, Hanuman deceased was found dead and the cause of death was the injuries on his person. As it was not a natural death, so it is established that an offence of murder had been committed.

The appellant got recovered the dead body of Hanuman by making a disclosure statement. It is in the evidence of Naresh and Assistant Sub-Inspector Sain Dass that the appellant made a disclosure statement saying that he had kept concealed the dead-body of Hanuman in the orchard of arcots in the area of village Tung Pain and that he could get the same recovered. The dead-body of Hanuman was recovered in consequence of the statement made by the appellant. Thus it is established that the appellant knew or had reason to believe that an offence of murder of Hanuman had been committed.

Now, it is to be seen as to whether it is a case wherein the appellant concealed the dead-body of Hanuman with an idea to cause the evidence of murder to disappear. As stated by Naresh, P.W. 3, the dead-body of Hanuman was recovered from a place which is at a distance of 11 furlongs from the house of Hanuman. It is further in the evidence of Naresh, P.W., and Assistant Sub-Inspector Sain Dass, that the dead-body of Hanuman was covered with a blue chadar and was lying with its face downwards. They further stated that bloodstained earth was also lifted from that place. There is nothing in the statements of Naresh and Assistant Sub-Inspector Sain Dass that the dead-body of Hanuman was lying hidden. It is also not evident from the record as to whether the place where the dead-body of Hanuman was lying, was not accessible to all and sundry. In a case where an accused person leads the police to a place and points out the spot from where the incriminating article is recovered, the hypothesis that are possible are:--

(i) that the accused saw somebody placing the dead-body there ;

(ii) that somebody told the accused that the dead-body was lying there and

(iii) that the accused himself had placed the dead-body there.

In considering the reasonableness of any of the hypothesis, the Court must have regard to the situation of the place where the article is placed or buried. All the circumstances urged by the prosecution against the appellant to prove the offence of murder, have been disbelieved by the trial Court. Even the evidence of ''last seen'' has been disbelieved by the trial Court. It is therefore, evident that the appellant had not murdered Hanuman. The place where the dead-body of Hanuman was lying is at a distance of 1� furlongs from the house of the deceased. It was visible and accessible to everybody. The dead-body was not buried underground. In case the accused wanted to screen the offender from legal punishment, it was not expected of him to place the dead-body at a distance of 1� furlongs from the house of the deceased and that too openly on the ground. The report regarding the missing of Hanuman had been lodged on 10th October, 1973 and the dead-body was recovered on the same day in the evening. After registering the case, the police must have made some efforts to find out the dead-body of Hanuman and for that purpose they must have searched the surroundings of his house. The possibility, therefore, cannot be ruled out, that as a result of the search for the dead-body, the police found it lying in the orchard of arcots and as Baundhan alias Krishna P.W., suspected the appellant, the recovery of the dead-body of Hanuman deceased might have been foisted upon him. It is not the case of the prosecution that the dead-body of Hanuman was found lying buried or that Osan appellant disinterred the same. If the appellant had dug out the dead-body from the earth, then the situation would have been different. Here in this case the place of recovery is visible and accessible to the public. Since the dead-body of Hanuman was not found buried in the ground, the hypothesis that the appellant might have merely seen the dead-body of Hanuman at the place where it lay, without his having himself put it there, also cannot be ruled out. It is, therefore, not proved that the appellant caused the disappearance of the evidence of murder with the intention to screen the offender from legal punishment and as such his conviction u/s 201, Indian Penal Code, cannot be maintained. The result is that this appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 201, Indian Penal Code, are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He should be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.