JUDGMENT - R.K. JOSHI, J.:---The appellant is original accused No. 2. He with Kisan Gangaram Kamble (original accused), since acquitted, were put on a joint trial. The charge against accused No. 1 was of committing the murder Jaytu s/o Rahgu by inflicting a fatal below by an axe on his head on 20th September, 1973 at 5 p.m. in the village Adsare-Khurd. The accused No. 2, Police Patil of the village, was charged under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the disappearance of the dead body of Jaytu with the intention of screening the offender, viz. accused No. 1, from legal punishment. Accused No. 1 was acquitted, accused No. 2 came to be convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Nasik, who awarded him R.I. for one year. It is against this order he came in appeal. A few facts leading to the tragic death of Jaytu and the manner in which the Police Patil (accused No. 2) came to be hauled up in this murder along with the alleged assailant Kisan Gangaram, could be briefly stated thus: The deceased Jaytu was a fisherman by profession who used to take out his livelihood by catching fish in the river flowing near the outskirts of this village. On 20th September, 1973, the fateful day, Jaytu spread his net in the river for catching the fish, came home and when he again returned to the river, found the net missing. He, therefore, went home, took his meals and set out on inquiries about the missing net at the village. It seems that he began to abuse the villagers in general for having committed the theft of his net. In front of the house of one Ananda Kouthe (P.W. 9) there was some exchange of words between the deceased Jaytu and accused No. 1 Kisan Gangaram. According to the prosecution, Kisan snatched the axe from the hands of Jaytu, administered a blow on his head as a result of which Jaytu fell down on the ota of Ananda in an unconscious State. One Diya informed the family members of the deceased that accused No. 1 assaulted Jaytu with an axe, and he was lying unconscious on the Ota of Ananda. One Diya informed the family members of the deceased that accused No. 1 assaulted Jaytu with an axe, and he was lying unconscious on the Ota of Ananda. Thereupon Raghu (P.W. 2), the father; Rama (P.W. 3), the elder brother; and Ranga (P.W. 4), the maternal uncle of Jaytu, visited the spot and found Jaytu lying there in an unconscious state. Ranga went to the Police Patil (accused No. 2) and informed him of the incident, but he refused to go to the spot. According to the prosecution the assault was actually witnessed by Ananda Kouthe (P.W. 9); Laxman Sutar (P.W. 10); Trimbak (P.W. 11); Bhau (P.W. 12); Murlidar (P.W. 13) and one Rama Mahar. All those eye-witnesses later on turned hostile in the course of trial. Gangaram, the father of accused No. 1, who happened to come there, persuaded the relatives of Jaytu to remove him to his house, and promised to offer Rs. 20/- and one pavali of Bajari to meet the expenses of his treatment. Jaytu was taken home, but does not seem to have been given any medical aid with the result that he succumbed to the injuries on 23-9-1973. Accused No. 2 was again informed of the death of Jaytu, but he advised the relatives of the deceased to bury the death body in his field near the river. Accused No. 2 recorded the statement of Raghu, the father; Rama the elder brother; Ranga, the maternal uncle; and Bandi, the mother of the deceased Jaytu to the effect that Jaytu, while he was at the river, suffered a heavy fall on the rock and sustained a head injury and they had no accusations to make against any one. The dead body of Jaytu was buried in the field of accused No. 2 on the same day. Accused No. 2 assured the relatives that he would convey the necessary information to the Police Station. There was a lull for about 5-6 days. An anoymous application (Ex. 7) was received at the Police Station, Ghoti that a poor fisherman was done to death in broad day light and the incident was witnessed by Ananda Kouthe, Laxman Sutar and others. It was further alleged that though the Police Patil was in the village and was apprised of this occurrence, he attempted to hush up the matter. 7) was received at the Police Station, Ghoti that a poor fisherman was done to death in broad day light and the incident was witnessed by Ananda Kouthe, Laxman Sutar and others. It was further alleged that though the Police Patil was in the village and was apprised of this occurrence, he attempted to hush up the matter. On receipt of this application Head Constable Ghate visited the village, recorded the statements of the relatives of Jaytu and went to the spot where the dead body was buried. When he made inquiries with accused No. 2, he produced the recorded statements of the four relatives of Jaytu. The wheels of investigation then began to move faster. The dead body of Jaytu was exhumed in the presence of the Taluka Magistrate, Igatpuri, on 30-9-1973. The Medical Officer Dr. Babar (P.W. 2) was summoned to the spot and there the autopy was carried out. The doctor opined that Jaytu had an incided injury on the left side of the head 4"x1" and death was due to coma resulting from intracranial haemorrhage. It again had its root in the fracture of the skull. The offence was investigated and it appears on 18-10-1973, the axe (Article 6) having some stains of blood lying near the house of one Bhau was seized, and the Chemical Analysers report indicated that it was human blood. On completing the preliminaries both the accused were put on a joint trial. It is needless to refer to the defence of accused No. 1 as he has been acquitted. Accused No. 2 denied that he was informed by the relatives of Jaytu on 20-9-1973 or that he refused to visit the spot. He admitted that on 22-9-1973 he recorded the statements of the four witnesses named above, but it was neither a false recorded in order to screen the offender, nor an attempt to hush up the crime. He conceded that he failed to submit his report about this incident to the police. At the outset it may be stated that during the course of the trial all the four or five witnesses who came on the scene and appeared before the investigating officers long after 30-9-1973, turned hostile. The only piece of evidence left against accused No. 1 were the statements of these four relatives who had no personal knowledge and of Dr. Babar who conducted the post-mortem examination. The only piece of evidence left against accused No. 1 were the statements of these four relatives who had no personal knowledge and of Dr. Babar who conducted the post-mortem examination. The attachment of the axe was neither here nor there so far as accused No. 2 was concerned. On this evidence, believing the testimony of the doctor, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that it was a case of homicidal death; but the evidence miserably failed the prosecution to bring home the charge of murder against accused No. 1. As against accused No. 2 the learned Sessions Judge having come to the conclusion that it was a case of homicidal death, which finding rested on the testimony of the Medical Officer Dr. Babar, relied upon the statements of Raghu, (P.W. 2); Rama, (P.W. 3); Ranga, (P.W. 4) who gave a go-by to the earlier stand taken before the Police Patil in conceding that Jaytu not an accidental death as a result of a fall on the rock while attempting to catch the fish, and asserted, as deposed to by the alleged eye witnesses, that it was as a result of an axe blow give by accused No. 1, Jaytu died. On this evidence the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that accused No. 2 had intentionally, in order to screen the offender, viz., accused No. 1, fabricated these statements and failed to give information respecting the offence of murder when he was appraised by the relatives of Jaytu that Jaytu was assaulted on the head and he died. In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge this omission on the part of the Police Patil was intentional and had attracted section 202 of the Indian Penal Code. On an overall review of the facts and circumstances of the case, to quote the words of the learned Judge, the intention of the Police patil was to screen the real offender and to destroy the evidence of murder. Consequently, he found him guilty under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. As the guilt of accused No. 2 rests on the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Babar and the three witnesses Raghu (P.W. 2), Rama (P.W. 3) and Ranga (P.W. 4), it would be worthwhile to make a brief reference to it before touching the various arguments advanced by Mr. Mengde appearing for the appellant. Dr. As the guilt of accused No. 2 rests on the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Babar and the three witnesses Raghu (P.W. 2), Rama (P.W. 3) and Ranga (P.W. 4), it would be worthwhile to make a brief reference to it before touching the various arguments advanced by Mr. Mengde appearing for the appellant. Dr. Babar who was working as the Medical Officer, Igatpuri, went to the spot where the dead body of Jaytu was buried, on 30-9-1973. After the body was exhumed in the presence of the Taluka Magistrate, he performed the autopsy on the spot. He noted an incised wound on the left parietal region of the scalp 4"x1". The injury was ante mortem. Internally he found the fracture of the left parietal bone. Brain was liquified and all the therasic and abdominal organs were decomposed. Hastened the doctor to add that the injury could be caused by a sharp cutting instrument and the death was due resulting from intracranial haemorrhage which again was resultant upon the fracture of the skull. In the opinion of the doctor, the head injury could be caused by an axe like (Article 6). He admitted that he does not remember whether on the clothes any blood was seen by him or not. If it is seen it is required to be noted in Column 8 of the post mortem notes. He conceded that the inquest panchanama is always sent to the doctor before the post mortem is conducted and it did mention there was an incised injury of 4"x1"; but he has failed to note the depth of the said injury and has vaguely said that it was a deep wound. He has not mentioned the direction of the wound, nor the depth of it. The width of the fracture of the pariotal bone was not mentioned, nor did he give the length thereof. All the parts of the brain were liquified. Next he said, "I did not and could not notice the condition of the hair bulbs. It is true that by the condition of the hair bulbs which can be examined by a lens, the opinion as to the injury being caused by a sharp weapon or not can be ascertained." He had not carried the lens and examination was not conducted from this aspect. It is true that by the condition of the hair bulbs which can be examined by a lens, the opinion as to the injury being caused by a sharp weapon or not can be ascertained." He had not carried the lens and examination was not conducted from this aspect. Finally he could not escape the admission that from the inquest itself he know the cause of death, but even in the post mortem report the type of weapon by which this incised injury could be caused was not mentioned, He denied the suggestion of such an injury being caused by a fall on a rock or a stone. Mr. Mengdes attack on this evidence was mainly three fold. The blow, according to the prosecution, was inflicted on 20-9-1973. Jaytu succumbed to the injury on 23-9-1973 and he was buried on the same day. The body was examed a week thereafter viz., on 30-9-1973. Naturally the body would be in a highly decomposed condition. Putrefaction starts after 24 to 36 hours of the death depending upon the variations in the climatic conditions. The two characteristic features of putrefaction are the colour changes and the development of foul-smelling gases. After some time the hair begins to drop down, the skin is peeled off and from 48 hours after death the gases collect in the tissues, cavities and hollow viscers under considerable pressure with the result that the features become blonted and distorted. In three to five days or more the natures of the skull, if any, are separated, the bones are lossened, and the liquified brain runs out. The next stage of putrefaction is known as colliquative putrefaction which begins from five to ten days or more after death. During this stage the walls of the abdomen become softened, and burst open protruding the stomach and intestine. If the putrofactive processes still go on, the tissues become soft, loose and are converted into a thick, semi-fluid, black mass. So far as the adult brain is concerned, the putrefaction first begins at its base, and then proceeds to the upper surface. It is hastened if any injury to the brain or skull is present. The brain becomes soft and pulpy within twenty-four to forty-eight hours in summer, and becomes a liquid mass from three to four days. These are the observations of Dr. Modi in his treatise on Medical Jurisprudence. It is hastened if any injury to the brain or skull is present. The brain becomes soft and pulpy within twenty-four to forty-eight hours in summer, and becomes a liquid mass from three to four days. These are the observations of Dr. Modi in his treatise on Medical Jurisprudence. The learned author further observes that purtefaction is hastened in a body buried in a damp, marshy, clavey soil, or in a shallow grave, where the body will be exposed to constant changes of temperature. It is not known in what soil this particular body was buried and at what depth. But one thing is certain, as the life rolls, that the pit or the grave is generally 3 to 4 ft., in depth. The body is covered not only by earth but heavy stones are also placed thereon so as to prevent the animals from excavating the same. In view of these odds, it is a surprise that the doctor should be bold enough to make such a categorical statement that it was an incised wound, that it was 4"x1", that it was anto mortem and could have been caused by means of an axe of the type of Article 6. His entire evidence, with respects, seems to have been touched up probably on the persuasiveness of the police or other agencies acting behind the screen. By a fall on a rock which was the case of the relatives of Jaytu in the first instance, and the defence, the might have been smashed giving rise to a fracture which would be irreconcilable. When the skin is peeled off, when the brain matter is in a liquified condition and when the doctor does not use the lens, it is extremely difficult to opine, much less with certainty, that the wound was an incised wound caused by a sharp cutting instrument like the axe (Article 6). The medical evidence does not inspire confidence in this Court, so far as the nature of the injury or its cause it concerned. Therefore, Mr. Mengdes submission on the initial point that the prosecution has failed to establish that this was a homicidal death cannot be said to be without substance. In any event, to put it at the minimum, the evidence does admit a reasonable doubt. Therefore, Mr. Mengdes submission on the initial point that the prosecution has failed to establish that this was a homicidal death cannot be said to be without substance. In any event, to put it at the minimum, the evidence does admit a reasonable doubt. The possibility of death occurring as a result of a fall on a rocky surface therefore cannot be ruled out. This takes me on to the evidence of the three witnesses name above. Raghu, the father, spoke in terms of the prosecution case, but conceded that he had no personal knowledge as to how Jaytu sustained the injuries on his head. He referred to the statements recorded by the Police Patil, but from the next admission it is clear that after the police came to he was interrogated thrice. His evidence is in conflict on certain material points as to who told him in the first instance that Jaytu suffered a fall or who persuaded him to take the injured to his house for giving the treatment and paid Rs. 20/- in addition to a pavli of bajri. It appears from the admission given by him that all these three witnesses Ananda Kouthe, Ananda Mahar and Laxman Sutar were present. They again went to the place where the victim was lying and this trio told them that Jaytu suffered a fall and was lying as an injured person. The father of accused No. 1 gave him Rs. 20/- and persuaded him to take the victim to his house. The evidence of Raghu (P.W. 3) and Ranga (P.W. 4) through which I was taken in great details, does not carry the prosecution case any further. On the other hand, from the admissions it is clear that the three persons Ananda Kouthe, Rama Mahar and Laxman Sutar were already present there and they gave this version. When questioned by the learned Advocate for accused No. 1 Rama pleaded ignorance of the presence of these witnesses and the version given by them; but it appears that at the earliest opportunity before the police Rama (P.W. 3) did make a statement that Rama Mahar, Ananda Kouthe and Laxman Sutar told them that Jaytu had a fall on a stone and sustained an injury and he should be removed to the house. He conceded that his relation with the Police Patil were not at all strained, but refuted the suggestion of the Police Patil reading out the statement to him. The maternal uncle Ranga (P.W. 4) spoke in somewhat similar terms, but made a singular admission in the cross-examination that Dinya had learnt in the village from other persons that accused No. 1 had struck Jaytu with an axe; but that does not seem to be the stand taken by these witnesses before the police. From the evidence of these three persons it would be manifest that they had no personal knowledge whatsoever and were acting on the words of Ananda Kouthe, Rama Mahar and Laxman Sutar. Those three persons were present when these three co-relatives went to the spot where Jaytu was lying. On the information given by these three persons they were satisfied about the authenticity of the version and the father of accused No. 1 persuate them to take the injured home and promised to pay Rs. 20/- which he did. At that stage none of them entertained any doubts of there being any foul play or the deceased receiving this injury at the hands of accused No. 1 Unfortunately on 23rd September, 1973 the victim not with his death and before that the Police Patil recorded the statements of the four persons viz. these three witnesses and Bandi, the mother of the deceased. All of them unanimously told the Police Patil that what they had learnt from Rama Mahar, Ananda Kouthe and Laxman Sutar. The Police Patil recorded their statement in the words which fell out from the lips of these three witnesses and those statements are at Exhibits 8 to 11. It is only after a week or so when the investigating agency began to act on the strength of an anonymous application, these witnesses perverted their statements and tried to shift their grounds so as to entangle both the accused; but the witnesses had to admit that they had no rancour against accused No. 2, the Police Patil, nor was he bearing any grudge against them. This has a considerable bearing on the aspect as to why the Police Patil should fabricate such statements unless they were made in that form by the three or four deponents. This has a considerable bearing on the aspect as to why the Police Patil should fabricate such statements unless they were made in that form by the three or four deponents. Now section 201 of the Indian Penal Code which penalises causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, postulates the commission of an offence. A mere rumour or suspicion is not sufficient. Secondly, the prosecution has to establish that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the offence had been committed. Thirdly, the accused caused the evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such offence having reason to believe the same to be false, and finally all these acts must be done with intention to screen the offender from legal punishment. If we analyse the evidence in the light of these essentials, to my mind it is clear that at the earliest stage the closest relatives of the deceased laboured under an impression that it was case of accidential fall and in that conclusion they relied upon the version of persons like Rama Mahar, Ananda Kouthe, Laxman Sutar and others who were present at the spot. The same version was conveyed by them to the Police Patil who reduced it to writing in good faith on 22nd. If these relatives had entertained any doubts, they would not have allowed the matters to rest at that stage by accepting Rs. 20/- for medical treatment and a palvi of bajri. Secondly, it is worthy to note that even after the death of Jaytu these relatives buried the dead body least doubting any foul play. On the third or 4th day an axe was noticed by them. Even then no body entertained any suspicion against accused No. 1 or any one else in the village. It is only when the investigation starts and the alleged disclosure is known, these persons being to entertain some suspicion against the accused. So far as the role of accused No. 2 is concerned, it is evident to my mind that he too sailed in the same boat as these relatives did at the earliest stage. He honestly believed that no offence was committed and in all probability, Jaytu had suffered a fracture as a result of a fall on the rooks on the banks of the river while attempting to catch the fish. He honestly believed that no offence was committed and in all probability, Jaytu had suffered a fracture as a result of a fall on the rooks on the banks of the river while attempting to catch the fish. There was not an inkling or an iota of a murder by 22nd that Jaytu had suffered the injury at the hands of either accused No. 1 or some one else or that it was he result of an offence being committed against Jaytu. No question of causing any evidence to disappear or making any false record arose on that day. It would be too much to say on this background that the statements were taken by the Police Patil with an intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, known or unknown. Accused No. 1 was not in the picture. There is nothing on the record to suggest that accused No. 2 was acting hand in glove with accused No. 1 or that he had any soft corner for accused No. 1. Under these circumstances, the evidence, putting all the charitable interpretation on it, does admit a reasonable doubt in establishing the essentials of either sections 201 or 202 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, to its benefit the appellant would be entitled. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court is set aside and the accused is ordered to be acquitted and discharged. Bail bonds stand cancelled. -----