JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - The Appellant stood charged u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code) with having committed the murder of his child aged about eleven months during the night of the 4th/5th October, 1977, by throwing the dead body into a well at village Sargidihi in the district of Sambalpur. Having committed the murder, it was alleged, he had lodged false information at the Kuchinda Police Station to the effect that his son was missing from his house, The prosecution examined seven witnesses to bring home the charge to the Appellant. A number of witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Reliance had been placed on a statement of the Appellant which had allegedly led to the discovery of the dead body of the child from inside the well. The learned Sessions Judge held that there was no evidence that the Appellant had him self thrown the baby into the well and observed that there was no independent evidence supporting that of the Investigating Officer that the Appellant's statement had led to the discovery of the dead body of the child from the well. Accordingly a order of acquittal in respect of the charge of murder was recorded. The learned Sessions Judge, however, came to the conclusion that it would be found from the evidence that the Appellant knew as to how his baby son had got drowned in the well and he was present when the dead body was recovered and therefore, it must be said that he had lodged false information at the police station regarding the missing of his baby son and consequently he would be liable to be punished u/s 201 of the Code although he had not been charged with it. The Appellant was convicted u/s 201 of the Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 2. Mr. Choudhury, appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that there was no evidence whatsoever to connect the Appellant with the crime for which the order of conviction had been recorded. 3. Section 201 false information with of the Code looks upon a person giving the intention of screening an offender as an accessory after the fact and makes him culpable as an offender committing an offence against public justice. 3. Section 201 false information with of the Code looks upon a person giving the intention of screening an offender as an accessory after the fact and makes him culpable as an offender committing an offence against public justice. The policy of the law is that nothing should be done which would lay false trials. In order to attract Section 201 of the Code, it is to be established that an accused person, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, has given an information which he knew or believed to be false with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. 4. From the mere fact recovery of the dead body from inside the well in the presence of the Appellant, it could not be assumed that the Appellant knew as to how the child had been thrown into the well and therefore, the information given at the police station that the child was missing was false. The child was aged only about eleven months. But it could be that another person had taken away the child from inside the house. The ingredients to bring the act of the Appellant u/s 201 of the Code had not been established. An order of conviction can be sustained on legal evidence and not merely on the basis of surmises and suppositions which cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial. Regard being had, to all these features in the case, Mr. P.K. Mohanty, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has fairly submitted that he would not support the order of conviction. In my view, the order of conviction of the Appellant u/s 201 of the Code is unfounded and misconceived and should not have been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant is set aside. Final Result : Allowed