Short Note : 1. Appellant and five others were prosecuted for offences under sections 120 B, 302, 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. All these including the appellant were acquitted for charges under sections 120 B, and 302 read with section 149 of the I.P.C. Accused Ramla, Bajroo and Shambhu were acquitted even for offence under section 201 IPC. However, Sonu and Bhadu were convicted for offences under sections 323 and 201 Part III of the I.P.C and each was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under section 323 IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under section 201 (iii) I.P.C on the reasoning that they were sentenced for substantive offence. These two do not appear to have preferred any appeal against that conviction and sentence. Appellant Dhelobai was convicted for an offence under section 201 Part-1 of the I.P.C and was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. She has preferred this appeal against that conviction and sentence through jail. She was, produced at the time of hearing and was accordingly heard. The record has been perused. 2. The appellant after the death of her first husband Chhotu had married deceased Punwa Sadhusingh (P.W.5) and accused Bhadu are the sons of appellant born to her from Chhotu. From deceased Punwa, Maniram was born to the appellant. This Maniram was also prosecuted, but was discharged by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 13-1-1977. Sanhu Singh (P.W.5) had kept the daughter of Sonu as his wife. Sadhu Singh being sick since last about three years, was living in a portion of the house of Sonu. Acquitted accused Ramla is the brother of Sonu, acquitted accused Bajru is the son of Sonu. Deceased Punwa, his wife appellant Dhelobai and Maniram were Jiving together in village Konhatola Patan. It is alleged that Punwa used to treat people by witch craft and the villagers also believed that. The deceased, occasionally had accordingly been treating Sadhu also. 3. The prosecution case is that on 28-8-1976 at about 4.00 P.M., the deceased was called to the house of Sonu where Sonu, Bhadu, Sadhu (P.W.5) and women were present. The deceased was told to cure Sadhwat at which the deceased said that Sadhu would not be cured and will soon die. Bhadu then inflicted blows by a wooden Pihda Art-A on the head of the deceased. The deceased was told to cure Sadhwat at which the deceased said that Sadhu would not be cured and will soon die. Bhadu then inflicted blows by a wooden Pihda Art-A on the head of the deceased. As a result of this Punwa got injured and went to his house in that condition, which is at a distance of about 150 yards from there. 4. Further allegation is that the accused persons then conspired to commit murder of deceased Punwa. Accordingly Sonu, Bhadu, Ramla, Bajroo and Shambhu came to the house of the deceased where Dhelobai and Maniram, besides the deceased were also present. On the advice of Sonu, Dhilobai along with Maniram went away to the house of Sadhu and Sonu stood outside the house to watch while Bhadu, Ramla, Shambhu and Barju killed Punwa. Thereafter, Dhelobai and Maniram also came there. The next day accused persons told people in the village that Punwa died due to dysentery. The dead body of Punwa was buried in the jungle in presence of other persons of the village. Held : Samarobai had seen Punwa going away from the house of Sonu. In the circumstances irresistible conclusion is that the injuries as were found on the deceased were inflicted sometimes later. The appellant, as has been brought out in the evidence of the witnesses gave false explanation about the head injuries as also about the cause of death of the deceased Punwa. The witnesses whose testimony has been referred to above, to whom the appellant had given those explanations, have no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Her explanation even in respect to the head injury was false. In view of the location of the head injuries as has been brought about in the evidence of Dr. Shrivastava, it would not be possible to have those injuries by a single fall. The death of Punwa admittedly took place at the house where the appellant was living with him. The circumstances do raise a suspicion against the appellant about her being a privy even to the murder of deceased Punwa. However, suspicion alone is not enough so far as the offence of murder is concerned. The conclusion from the circumstances, therefore, is that the appellant knew that the murder of Punwa has been committed. She gave patently false explanation about the cause of his death. However, suspicion alone is not enough so far as the offence of murder is concerned. The conclusion from the circumstances, therefore, is that the appellant knew that the murder of Punwa has been committed. She gave patently false explanation about the cause of his death. The dead body of Punwa was got buried with the obvious intention of screening the offenders from the legal punishment. In my opinion, the appellant has rightly been found guilty for an offence under section 201 of the India Penal Code. Appeal dismissed.