JUDGMENT 1. - This is a jail appeal filed by Mst. Chau against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, dated 14th March, 1977, by which the appellant was convicted under section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - , in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The incident that led to the prosecution of the appellant may be briefly stated as follows:- On 22nd July, 1976, Birdhi Chand Jain, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sri Nagar, made a report to the police at police-station, Mandalgarh, about dead body of a person lying in the well of village Daulpura. The report was received by Gyan Chand, Head Constable who was incharge of the Police Station, Mandalgarh on that day. On the basis of the report Gyan Chaad incharge of the Police Station, initiated an inquiry into the matter under section 174. Cr.P.C. He proceeded to the well wherein the dead body was lying and in the presence of respectable inhabitants of the village made an investigation after getting the dead body taken out of the well. He drew up a report of the apparent cause of the death describing injuries as were found on the body. The lower parts of the body i.e. lower abdomen with lower limbs were missing as they were slashed out. The report prepared by Gyan Chand in the presence of Motbirs was sent to the Police Station, Mandalgarh, for registering a criminal case. The police registered a case under sections 302 201, I.P.C. on the basis of the said report. On the next day Mathura Das identified the dead body to be that of Siya Rarn Sadku. The dead body was sent to Mandalgarh for post-mortem examination. Mr. D. M. Das conducted an autopsy over the dead-body and found, as many as, following six injuries:- 1. Incised wound (blot out edges) 31/2" x 1/2 x 2⅓ (bone touch) oblique associated with extensive inquiries to deep, underlying structures on the posterior triangle of left side of neck ; 2. Left ear chopped off (no direction is noticeable) with bone slip 2" x 1/4" x ⅓" oblique on the mastoid portion of left temporal bone ; 3. Incised wound (blot out edges) 31/2" x 1/2 x 2⅓ (bone touch) oblique associated with extensive inquiries to deep, underlying structures on the posterior triangle of left side of neck ; 2. Left ear chopped off (no direction is noticeable) with bone slip 2" x 1/4" x ⅓" oblique on the mastoid portion of left temporal bone ; 3. Obliteration of the wound with bone slip 3,1/2" x 1/4" oblique on the squamosal part of left temporal bone slide over 11/4" length squamosal suture ; 4. Incised wound (blot out edges) matted on several unogether 5" x 1" x mouth (mashed bones are outer view) oblique on the left side of face ; 5. Incised wound (blot out edges) 2" x 3/4" x smashed bone, oblique associated with extensive injuries to deep. Underlying structure on the anterior triangle of the right of neck ; 6. Slashed out completely (sharp cutting) irregular horizontally encircling 34" lower abdomen. 3. In the opinion of the Doctor, death occurred due to shock, haemorrhage and comma caused by multiple ante-mortem injuries on had and other parts of the body. Gyan Chand then handed over the investigation of this case to Prithvi Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Prithvi Singh arrested Mst. Chau on 23rd July 1976 vide memo of arrest Ex. P. 5. After her arrest Mst. Chau furnished an information to Prithvi Singh, while being under police custody, that she had thrown one leg of the dead body into the waters of Anvali river after tying a stone to the leg. The above information was recorded by Prithvi Singh in a memo Ex. P. 6. Later on, Mst. Chau gave him another information that she had thrown another leg of the dead body into a in well known as 'Mendali'well of village Daulpura after tying a stone to it. This information was also reduced into writing by Prithvi Singh in a memo Ex. P. 7. In pursuance of these information the two legs were recovered. One from the water of Anvali river and another from Mendali well at the instance of the appellant. The two legs were taken into possession by the police in the presence of Motbirs and were sent to Dr. D. M. Das for medical examination. Dr. Das examined the legs and gave the following remarks in respect of each leg:- 1. One from the water of Anvali river and another from Mendali well at the instance of the appellant. The two legs were taken into possession by the police in the presence of Motbirs and were sent to Dr. D. M. Das for medical examination. Dr. Das examined the legs and gave the following remarks in respect of each leg:- 1. It was lower limb of right side tightened by a rope in a flexuous condition, then tying a know to a piece of stone, skin of whole length of the limb was sodden appearance and hair existing, riogour mortis passed off soft tissue from the different places of the limb fall off, emiting of foul smell and maggots (small) crawling, lower half cut off, fracture piece of illium of right hip bone was attached with the limbs ; 2. Incised wound 6" x 1/2 x 1" vertical along the lateral side of the middle of right skin bone-no fracture ; 3. Femur with hip bone attached with ligament Femur longest and strongest. Length 42.3 cm - . 4. Patella, fibula and tibia length 30.5 cm. 5. Foot with attached ligamentous tissues length 23.5 cm. Calcaneum bone, talas, navicular, cuneiform, enbored, and all metatarsal bones. All these were of human type and construction. The foot was so obviously human as to be plainly so to a long person middle aged ; 1. It was lower limb of left side tightened by a rope in a flexuous condition, then tying a knot, skin of whole length of the limb was sodden appearance and hair existing. Rigor mortis passed off. Soft tissue from the whole leg and foot. Surface of thigh fall off, emitting of foul smell and many maggots (small) crawling, lllium of left hip bone breaking to two pieces by sharp cutting was attached with the limb. Ischium breaking to multiple pieces by sharp cutting, pubis fracture distorted ; 2. Femur with hip bone attached with ligament, femur longest and strongest; 3. Patella, fibula, and tibia-no fracture, 4. Foot with attached ligamentous tissues. Bones all present. No fracture. All those were of human type and construction. The foot was so obviously human as to be plainly so to a long person middle aged. 4. Mst. Chau supplied another information to Prithvi Singh which led to the recovery of an axe from her house. Foot with attached ligamentous tissues. Bones all present. No fracture. All those were of human type and construction. The foot was so obviously human as to be plainly so to a long person middle aged. 4. Mst. Chau supplied another information to Prithvi Singh which led to the recovery of an axe from her house. As the axe was suspected to have blood stains on it, it was seized and sealed by Prithvi Singh in the presence of Motbirs. Prithvi Singh inspected the house of the appellant and found blood stains on the walls and the floor thereof. He noticed marks of dragging of the dead body along with stains of blood on the ground and completed the investigation. The axe and the other articles like 'Gudhari', Dhoti, pieces of blood-stained clothes and pieces of stones were sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist for analysis. The Dhoti and the pieces of blood-stained clothes were found to have stains of human blood. The blood status on other articles were disintegrated on their origin could not be determined by Serologist. Prithvi Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, upon completion of investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the appellant under sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. in the court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandalgarh. The learned Magistrate, upon finding a prima-facie case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the appellant to the court of the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, for the trial for the aforesaid offences. The sessions Judge tried the appellant on both charges under sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and found her guilty of causing dis-appearance of evidence of murder to screen the offender from legal punishment only and acquitted her of the charge of murder. The Sessions Judge, therefore, recorded a conviction of the appellant under S. 201, IPC aid after hearing her counsel on the point of sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fins of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months, as mentioned above. Aggrieved by her conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. 5. The appeal was admitted by,this Court on 23rd June, 1977 and notice of the date, time and place at which the appeal shall be heard was given to Mst. Chau appellant through the Jail authorities and to the Public Prosecutor. Aggrieved by her conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. 5. The appeal was admitted by,this Court on 23rd June, 1977 and notice of the date, time and place at which the appeal shall be heard was given to Mst. Chau appellant through the Jail authorities and to the Public Prosecutor. As the appellant is not financially well off, Mr. B. Advani was appointed as Amicus-curiae under the Legal Aid Programme to represent her in this appeal without accepting any fees. The appellant appeared before me in response to the notice. I have heard the appellant in person and Mr. B. Advani appearing on her behalf. I have heard Mr. K. C. Bhandari, Public Prosecutor for the Slate, also and carefully perused the .record. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no reliable evidence from the side of the prosecution about the commission of an offence of murder of the appellant's husband Siya Ram Sadhu and unless, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that an offence of murder has been committed for which some known or unknown person is criminally liable, no question of the appellant knowing or having reason to believe that an offence or murder has been committed or of causing the evidence of the commission of such an offence to disappear in order to screen the offender does arise. It was further urged that mere recoveries of two legs of a dead person at the instance of the appellant and in consequence of her information's recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act are not sufficient to constitute an offence under section 201, Indian Penal Code in the absence of any positive evidence that the two legs were parts of the dead body of the appellant's husband. In support of his above contention, Mr. B. Advani, amicus curiae, invited my attention to the statement of Dr. D. M. Das, P. W. 5 and contended on its strength that the Doctor did not assign any good reaction for coming to the conclusion that the two legs were parts of the same body over which he had performed postmortem examination on 23rd July, 1976. Mr. B. Advani, amicus curiae, invited my attention to the statement of Dr. D. M. Das, P. W. 5 and contended on its strength that the Doctor did not assign any good reaction for coming to the conclusion that the two legs were parts of the same body over which he had performed postmortem examination on 23rd July, 1976. Mr. K. C. Bhandari, Public Prosecutor, for the State, on the other hand, urged that the Doctor, who examined the two legs, definitely opined that they were parts of the same dead body which was autopsied by him on 23rd July, 1976, According to Mr. K. C. Bhandari, the Doctor has given out convincing reasons for holding the opinion that the two legs were of the same dead body which was recovered from the well and sent to him for post-mortem examination. 6. I have given ray best consideration to the rival contentions. From a bare reading of S. 201 I.P.C. it appears that the following ingredients are essential to constitute an offence under this section 1. there must have been committed an offence ; 2. the accused must be credited with knowledge or belief that an offence was committed; 3. the accused must have caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear ; 4. In doing so, he must have Intended to screen the offender from legal punishment; 5. In case of giving false information, it is further necessary to show that the accused had the knowledge or the belief that the information given by him was false. 7. In the instant case, it has not been established by cogent and reliable evidence that an offence of murder has been committed for which some person known or unknown is criminally responsible. A mere suspicion that Mst. Chau's husband might have been murdered is not enough. In Sulaiman Rahiman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 , it has been observed by their lordships as follows:- "To establish the charge under S. 201, that prosecution must first prove that an offence had been committed, not merely a suspicion that it might have been committed and that the accused, knowing or having reason to believe that such an offence had been committed, and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, had caused the evidence thereof to disappear. The proof of the commission of offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the offence under S. 201, Penal Code. 8. It will not be out of place to mention that the appellant was tried for the murder of her husband Siya Ram by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara and was found not guilty thereof, because of insufficient evidence to prove the commission of the main offence of murder . It is no doubt true that a dead body was recovered from the well known as 'Aakasiya' well situated in village Daulpura on the basis of the report of Birdhi Chand Jain, Sarpanch, Grant Panchayat, Sri Nagar, but there is no reliable evidence on the record that the dead body was of Mst. Chau's husband Siya Ram. The prosecution examined Mathura Das, P. W. 2, to prove that the dead body taken out of the well was of Siya Ram. Mathura Das P. W. 2 claimed to have identified the dead body to be of Siya Ram at the time when it was taken out of the well in the presence of 10 or 20 persons of the village. The evidence of Mathura Das does not appear to be true and reliable for the simple reason that the other witnesses, who were present when the dead body was taken out of the well, did not say that the dead body was identified by Mathura Das or by some body else at that time. Gyan Cband P. W. 3 was the Head Constable Incharge of Police Station, Mandalgarh, on 22nd July, 1976. He had gone to village Daulpura upon receiving an information Ex. P. 1 that a dead body was lying in the well. He caused the dead body to be taken out of the well. He definitely stated in bis deposition at the trial that no body identified the dead body. According to his version Mathura Das identified the dead body to be of Siya Ram Sadhu on the next day. In his cross-examination the witness further admitted that the dead body was not identifiable and that, the villagers expressed their inability to identify it. He called for Mst. Chau appellant and asked her whether she could identify the dead body. The appellant also expressed her inability to recognise it. In his cross-examination the witness further admitted that the dead body was not identifiable and that, the villagers expressed their inability to identify it. He called for Mst. Chau appellant and asked her whether she could identify the dead body. The appellant also expressed her inability to recognise it. Likewise, Birdhi Chand, P. W. 6 stated in his cross-examination at the trial that the dead body could not be identified by any person in the village when it was taken out of the well. Hence, the evidence of Mathura Das that he had identified the dead body, as soon as, it was taken out of the well on 22nd July, 1976, does not find corroboration from the testimony of Gyan Chand, Head Constable, and Birdhi Chand. 9. The next question that crops up for consideration is whether the dead body was identified by Mathura Das to be of Siya Ram Sadhu on the next day, i. e. on 23rd July, 1976, at about 2.30 p.m. as alleged by Gyan Chand P. W. 3, in his statement. This fact also does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. Prithvi Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, P. W. 4 was the Investigating Officer in this case. He did not say in his deposition that the dead body was identified before him by Mathura Das on the next day. When cross-examined on this point, he stated that the dead body was identified before he had reached the hospital on 23rd July, 1976. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not enquire from the Doctor as who had identified the dead body. According to his version, he was informed by a Head Constable that Identification of the dead body had taken place. The Head Constable who had informed him about identification of the dead body was not examined by the prosecution at the trial. Dr. D. M. Das, who performed post-mortem examination over the dead body, on 23rd July, 1976, clearly stated in his deposition that nobody identified the dead body in bis presence. He has made a note in his post-mortem report Ex. P. 13 to this effect. Prithvi Singh, Dy. S. P., P. W. 4, further admitted in his cross-examination that he took-up investigation into this case at about 2 or 2-30 p.m. on 23rd July, 1976 and when he reached the hospital in the afternoon, the post-mortem examination had already begun. He has made a note in his post-mortem report Ex. P. 13 to this effect. Prithvi Singh, Dy. S. P., P. W. 4, further admitted in his cross-examination that he took-up investigation into this case at about 2 or 2-30 p.m. on 23rd July, 1976 and when he reached the hospital in the afternoon, the post-mortem examination had already begun. If his statement is taken to be true, then Gyan Chand's statement that the dead body was identified on 23rd July, 1976, at 2-30 p. m. does not appear to be correct, because at 2 or 2.30 p. m. he had handed over the investigation to Prithvi Singh ana the dead body had already been taken to hospital for post-mortem examination. Over and above all, Mathura Das, who is said to have identified the dead body, did not say in his deposition at the trial that he had identified it to be of Siya Ram on the next day at 2.30 p. m. On the other hand, he clearly admitted in his cross-examination that for the first time he saw the dead body when it was taken out of the well and then he again saw it after post-mortem examination was performed over it and it was handed over to him for cremation. During the period that elapse between the taking out of the dead body from the well and the performance of the postmortem examination over the dead body, he did not claim to have seen the dead body. The following lines appearing in his cross-examination and quoted below as they are relevant to the point in issue:- " eSaus yk'k igys dq,a ls fudkyh rc ns[kh ;k fQj iksLVekVZe ds ckn tykus ds fy, eq>s nh rc ns[kh FkhA blds ckn eSaus yk'k dks ugha ns[kkA " 10. Consequently, I am of the view that the prosecution could not prove that the dead body taken out of the well was identified by any person to be of the appellant's husband Siya Ram. A mere suspicion that Siya Ramjwas murdered and that the dead body was of Siya R.am is not enough. 11. The second ingredient essential to constitute an offence under S. 201, I.P.C. is also missing in this case. A mere suspicion that Siya Ramjwas murdered and that the dead body was of Siya R.am is not enough. 11. The second ingredient essential to constitute an offence under S. 201, I.P.C. is also missing in this case. There is not an iota of reliable evidence on the record that the appellant knew or had reason to believe that her husband was murdered or that the dead body recovered from the well was of some person who had been murdered. The prosecution could not place any material on the record to show or suggest that the appellant was present in the house at the time when her husband was murdered or she was last seen with him at any place. In her statement at the trial she stated that she had gone to the house of her parents for the last 1 or 11/2 months and that she did not know whether her husband is alive or dead. In the absence of any positive evidence relating to her knowledge or belief about her husband's death or murder her above statement that she was away for the last 1 or 11/2 months cannot be discarded. Where no offence is proved to have been committed by some known or unknown person, no question of the appellant knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed or of screening any offender from legal punishment or of causing the disappearance of the evidence, of the commission of such offence does arise. 12. Mr. K. C. Bhandari, Public Prosecutor, for the State, vehemently contended before me that two legs of human body were recovered from different places, i. e. one from the well from which the dead body was taken out of the well and another from the waters of a river at the instance of the appellant and in consequence of her informations recorded under S. 27 of the Evidence Act, which clearly go to prove that she had caused the disappearance of the evidence of the commission of murder with an intention to screen the offender from legal punishment. The above contention has no force. It is undoubtedly true that recoveries of two legs of human body were made by the Investigating Officer from different places at the instance of the appellant and in pursuance of her information's which she furnished to the police while being under police custody. The above contention has no force. It is undoubtedly true that recoveries of two legs of human body were made by the Investigating Officer from different places at the instance of the appellant and in pursuance of her information's which she furnished to the police while being under police custody. The recoveries are proved by the evidence Prithvi Singh, Dy. S. P., but it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the two legs were the parts of the same body which was recovered from the well by Gyan Chand, Head Constable, on 22nd July, 1976. Dr. D. M. Das did not assign any good reason how he came to a conclusion that the two legs were parts of the same dead-body which was taken out of the well and over which he performed post-mortem examination on 23rd July, 1976. When the two legs were sent to him for examination on 24th July, 1976, the dead-body taken out of the well was not before him. Hence separate parts, i. e. two legs and the trunk could not be fitted together to find out whether they belonged to one and the same body. Unless the legs and the trunk were fitted together, the Doctor was not in a position to elucidate the manner of separation as to whether the legs had been hacked sawn through, cut clearly, lacerated, or gnawed through by animals. He merely stated that the length of both legs, the hair on it and their development were identical with the trunk. In my opinion, the Doctor could say so after fitting together the two legs with the trunk. By mere examination of the two legs later on, it was difficult for him to determine that the two legs were parts of the same trunk which was taken out of the well. Assuming that the two legs were parts of the same trunk, which was taken out of the well and over which post-mortem examination, was performed by Dr. D. M. Das on 23rd July, 1976, no offence under S. 201, I.P.C. is made out in the absence of any positive evidence that any offence of murder was committed and that the appellant knew or had reason to believe that her husband or any other person known or unknown had been murdered. D. M. Das on 23rd July, 1976, no offence under S. 201, I.P.C. is made out in the absence of any positive evidence that any offence of murder was committed and that the appellant knew or had reason to believe that her husband or any other person known or unknown had been murdered. The possibility that the two legs of some dead person might have been separated or gnawed through by animals cannot altogether be ruled out in this case. Likewise, the recovery of an axe at the instance of and in consequence of an information supplied by the appellant to the Investigating Officer, while being under police custody, is of no avail to the prosecution, because there is no evidence that it was stained with human blood. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am clearly of the view that the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the appellant under S. 201, I.P.C.beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. 13. The appeal is therefore, accepted , the conviction and the sentence passed against Mst. Chau by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, are set aside and she is acquitted of the offence punishable under S. 201, I.P.C. She is in jail and shall be set at liberty forthwith , if not required in connection with some other case.Appeal Allowed/Appellant Acquitted. *******