Seetha Lakshmi (pending appeal died) and Ramanathan vs The State

G.M. Akbar Ali, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment in S.C. No. 17 of 2000 dated 18.03.2005, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. The Appellant is arrayed as A3 for an alleged offence u/s 302 r/w 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The specific charge against the Appellant is u/s 201 I.P.C., for screening of offence.

The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

There were totally four accused and except A3, the other accused had died. The Appellant/A1 and her son A4 are living in Srivilliputhur Town. The deceased Shanthi is the wife of A4. A1 had illegal intimacy with A2. A2 frequently visiting the house of A1 and therefore, this was questioned by the deceased Santhi. Due to which, on 20.08.1998, at about 7.30 a.m., A1 and A2 alleged to have strangulated the neck of the victim and also by pressing her face with pillow and thereby A1 and A2 caused the death of deceased Shanthi. After that, the accused A3 and A4 tried to screen the offence by transporting the body to Kangeyam for the purpose of burial. They engaged P.W.9, the van driver in whose van the body of the deceased was taken. As the land lord of the house of A2 at Kangeyam did not allow the dead body to be brought to his house they returned. On nearing Oddenchathiram the van driver refused to co operate and the body was kept on the road. The Inspector of police was informed. On 21.08.1998, the Head Constable, P.W.1, attached to Oddanchatram Police Station, on instructions from the Inspector of Police, went to Pannaipatti, where he found the body of the deceased on the road side. On enquiry, A1, A2 and A4 told that the deceased Shanthi is the wife of A4 and when she was in their house, met with an accident while climbing staircase. However, P.W.1 arranged a van and took the body to Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, where he lodged a complaint Ex.P.1. Pursuant to which, a case in Crime No. 746 of 1998 has been registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, for suspicious death. On 22.08.1998, after registering a case of 174 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Respondent Police sent the body for postmortem. The Doctor, P.W.10, who conducted the Postmortem sent the sample for viscera. Ex.P12 is the report for examination of hyoid bone. After getting opinion from the forensic lab, the Doctor opined that the death was due to asphyxia and strangulation. The Expert Report is Ex.P.33. Thereafter, the First Information Report was altered into one the offence under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. After investigation, the Respondent Police filed a charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

During the pendency of the trial, A2 and A4 died. A1 and A3 alone faced the trial and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur found that A1 guilty for an offence u/s 302 I.P.C., and sentenced to go life imprisonment with default clause and the Appellants/A3 is found guilty for an offence u/s 201 r/w 34 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with default clause. They have preferred this appeal. Pending appeal, first Appellant/A1 died. The Appellant/A3 is before this Court.

The point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the conviction and sentence is sustainable?.

Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant/A3 would submit that the Appellant had No. reason to have knowledge of an offence committed against the deceased and even according to the prosecution, it is only the husband of the deceased took away the body to Kangeyam, to cremate the deceased. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that from the evidence of Van driver, P.W.9 and the undertaking letter, Ex.P.2, alleged to have been given to him, the Appellant''s name is not found. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the presence of the Appellant was not spoken by any of the witnesses and he had No. knowledge about the offence and therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained.

On the contrary, Mr. P.N. Pandidurai, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the presence of the Appellant was spoken by the Van driver, who had taken the body to Kangeyam; P.W.12, the owner of the house; P.W.14, the President of the Panchayat of Kangeyam Village; the Inspector of Police, who arranged for transport of the dead body to Srivilliputhur from Pannaipatti and also by P.W.1, who gave the complaint.

We have carefully considered the counter arguments and also perused the materials available on record.

P.W.12, the owner of the house would state that the Appellant received a phone call from Rajapalayam and he went to Rajapalayam very urgently. P.W.9 would categorically state that on 20.08.1998 at 8.00 p.m., the Appellant engaged him to take the dead body of his brother''s wife one Shanthi and he went along with him. He would further state that on seeing the dead body in a suspicious circumstances, he enquired about the same and he was told that the deceased Shanthi met with an accidental fall while climbing the staircase. P.W.9 had taken the body of the deceased along with the Appellant/A3 and the other accused to Kangeyam, where they met P.Ws.12 and 14. Since P.Ws.12 and 14 would categorically state that they refused to grant permission for cremation of the deceased they returned back to Srivilliputhur. P.W.9 would again state that while reaching Panaipatti Village, the Appellant and the other accused pushed down the body of the deceased and the body was kept lying on the road. According to the prosecution, the passersby informed the local Police Inspector, who made arrangement for transport of the body and also ordered P.W.1 to accompany the body and to give a complaint to Srivilliputure Police Station. A case has been registered and after obtaining the Postmortem report, a charge sheet was laid for murder and screening of the evidence. From the evidence of P.Ws.9,12 and 16 corroborated by P.W.1, we are convinced that the Appellant was all along accompanied the other accused and the body of the deceased and the only object of them was to dispose of the body so that the offence can be screened and it is unbelievable that the Appellant was not aware the offence committed.

Section 201 of I.P.C., reads as follows:

Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to scree 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 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 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be 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 that 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.

To attract Section 201 I.P.C., the following ingredients are necessary.

(i) committal of an offence;

(ii) Person charged with the offence must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed;

(iii) Person charge with offence should have caused disappearance of evidence; and

(iv) the act should have been done with an intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. See., V.L. Tresa Vs. State of Kerala,

Therefore, once the accused knew the death of the deceased was not a natural one, the knowledge is presumed. The presence of the Appellant along with the other accused would demonstrate that the object of taking the body from Rajapalayam to Kangeyam and returning to Srivilliputhur, is nothing but to screen the offence and therefore, the conviction imposed by the learned trial Judge is sustainable.

However, the learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the Appellant had nothing to do with the offence and the main offenders A2 and A3 had already died and the husband of the deceased also died and therefore, requested to show leniency on the Appellant.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in view of the request made by the leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant to show leniency on the Appellant and to meet the ends of justice, we are of the view that the sentence imposed on the Appellant is reduced to the period already under gone.