JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - The Appellant Basista Jani is one of the three accused persons who were jointly tried for having committed the murder of Dhanasingh Jani of village Raniganj under Hara bhanga P.S. in the district of Phulbani on 28-4-1970 and having caused disappearance of the evidence of murder by cremating the dead body on 29-4-1970. All the three accused persons stood charged under Sections 302 and 201, both read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The Appellant was also charged separately for the substantive offence u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. He has been convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted u/s 201, Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence has been awarded for this offence. Accused Bhakta Dehuri and Kashinath Dehuri have been acquitted of all the charges under benefit of doubt. The State has not appealed against the order of acquittal. Therefore, the same has become final. 2. The accusation against the Appellant was that he had ill-feeling with the deceased Dhanasingh Jani regarding enjoyment of the lands of the village deity and prior to the date of occurrence he had threatened him that if he continued to work as priest of the village deity he would be killed. On 28-4-1970 the deceased went in the company of the Appellant and the accused Bhakta Dehuri to take bath in a tank, but did not return home. His wife Aruna Bewa p.w. 8 began to search in the evening, but could not trace him. On the next morning the dead body of the deceased was found floating in a tank locally known as Kalabandha which is at a distance of about two furlongs from the house of the deceased. His ears, nose, tongue and private organ had been cut, both the eye balls had been removed, the skull had been fractured and a wooden peg had been thrust inside the anus. After the dead body was recovered from the tank, the Appellant gave out to the villagers that the death of the deceased was only a natural death. He prevented the villagers from having a look at the dead body and took a leading part in cremating the same. He also threatened p.w. 8 not to lodge information with the police about the incident. He prevented the villagers from having a look at the dead body and took a leading part in cremating the same. He also threatened p.w. 8 not to lodge information with the police about the incident. During the absence of the Appellant from the village, p.w. 8 went to the police Out-post and lodged F.I.R. on 18-5-1970. In course of investigation, the police seized a blood stained Dhoti from the house of the Appellant which, on serological test, was found to contain human blood. 3. The Appellant denied his alleged complicity in the commission of the crime and the several circumstances put against him. 4. That the death of the deceased was homicidal admits of no doubt. This is amply borne out by the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 8 who identified the dead body after it was recovered from the tank and found that its ears, nose, tongue and the private organ had been cut, the skull had been fractured and a wooden peg had been thrust inside the anus. Their evidence sufficiently establishes the fact that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained. 5. The order of conviction u/s 302, Indian Penal Code rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are: (1) The deceased was last seen alive in the company of the Appellant and Bhakta Dehuri on 28-4-1970 and in the next morning his dead body was found floating in the tank. (2) The Appellant was prompted by a motive to kill the deceased. (3) After the dead body was recovered from the tank, the Appellant expressed unusual anxiety to dispose of the same and got it cremated. He tried to make it known to the villagers that the deceased died of dysentery. (4) A Dhoti seized from the house of the Appellant on 21-5-1970 was found to be stained with human blood; and (5) the Appellant made an extrajudicial confession before p.w. 1 Madhu Konhar. 6. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence about extra-judicial confession and, in our opinion, he did so rightly. He, however, relied upon the other circumstances in convicting the Appellant. The question is whether those circumstances are sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. 7. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the Appellant and Bhakta Dehuri were the persons in whose company the deceased was last seen alive on 28-4-1970. He, however, relied upon the other circumstances in convicting the Appellant. The question is whether those circumstances are sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. 7. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the Appellant and Bhakta Dehuri were the persons in whose company the deceased was last seen alive on 28-4-1970. p.w. 3 Hara Bagh is the only witness who stated that he had seen the deceased going in the company of the Appellant and Bakta Dehuri towards the tank and that on the next morning he found the dead body floating in the tank. When another person besides the Appellant was found in the company of the deceased, it can not be said that the Appellant had the exclusive opportunity of committing the murder. We do not, therefore, attach any importance to this circumstance. 8. As regards the second circumstance, it is in the evidence of p.w. 8 that about one year prior to the occurrence the Appellant had threatened the deceased that he would be killed if he continued to work as the priest of the village deity. The evidence of p.ws. 1 and 5 also reveals that after the occurrence when p.w. 1 was selected by the villagers to work as the priest of the village deity Appellant threatened him with evil consequences. There is nothing to disbelieve their sworn testimony. It will, thus, be seen that the Appellant wanted to work as the priest and to enjoy the lands of the village deity. He had, therefore, a strong motive to do away with the life of the deceased. 9. It transpires from the evidence of p.ws. 4 and 11 that two Dhotis (M.Os. I and II) having stains of blood were seized from the house of the Appellant as per the seizure list-Ext. 1. On chemical examination and serological test, one of these two dhotis was found to be stained with human blood-Vide Exts. 8 and 9. Though the Appellant furnished no explanation as to how the cloth was stained with human blood, yet this circumstance by itself would be hardly sufficient to indubitably connect him with the murder in the circumstances of this case. 10. 8 and 9. Though the Appellant furnished no explanation as to how the cloth was stained with human blood, yet this circumstance by itself would be hardly sufficient to indubitably connect him with the murder in the circumstances of this case. 10. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that after the dead body was recovered from the tank the Appellant expressed unusual anxiety to disposed of the same and did not allow any body to have a look at it. The evidence of p.ws. 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9 which the trial Court fully believed and with which view we see no reason to differ, clearly shows that the Appellant tried to make it known that the deceased died of dysentery and directed the villagers to dispose of the same. p.w. 8, the widow of the deceased, has stated how the Appellant prevented her from applying oil and turmeric on the dead body according to custom of the caste and persuaded her to give out to the villagers that her husband had died of dysentery and also threatened her with evil consequences if she would tell any body about what she had seen. The fact that the Appellant directed disposal of the corpse is a strong circumstantial evidence that he was the murderer, because after all it is the murderer who has the strongest reasons to conceal the trace of his crime. But that evidence, though conclusive proof of an offence u/s 201, Indian Penal Code, is not sufficient to sustain a charge of murder. 11. Taking all the circumstances into account, we find it impossible to come to the unhesitating conclusion that the Appellant was the author of the murder. It is undoubtedly a case of suspicion of a very strong character against the Appellant, but a conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion. The conviction u/s 302, Indian Penal Code is, accordingly, set aside. 12. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Appellant can be convicted u/s 201, Indian Penal Code. It is not necessary that the Appellant should, be aware of the identity of the offender whom he intends to screen. It is sufficient if he had the knowledge that by this act he was likely to save a person from legal punishment. It is not necessary that the Appellant should, be aware of the identity of the offender whom he intends to screen. It is sufficient if he had the knowledge that by this act he was likely to save a person from legal punishment. There is nothing in Section 201, Indian Penal Code to require the prosecution to prove that the accused intended to screen a specified offender. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to infer that the Appellant, knowing that the deceased had died as a result of the injuries sustained, caused disposal of the dead body with a view to destroy the evidence of murder. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is both definite and direct. While, therefore, acquitting the Appellant of the charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code we would maintain his conviction u/s 201, Indian Penal Code and impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 13. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. G.K. Misra, C.J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Allowed