JUDGMENT (ORAL) D.N. Mehta, J. - These two Criminal Appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment since identical issues of facts and law are involved therein and both the appeals arise, from a common judgment. 2. The appellant Smt. Lata, widow of Dattu Naik Madgaonkar in Criminal Appeal No. 22/1989 is the mother of the appellant Prashant Dattu Naik in Criminal Appeal No. 30/1989. One Smt. Geeta alias Pranita was the wife of Prashant Dattu Naik, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 30/1989. Smt. Geeta alias Pranit.1, Prashant Dattu Naik and his mother Smt. Lata Naik were charged before the Addl. Sessions Judge, South Goa at, Margao, that on 21st day of July, 1988 Accused No.1 Geeta alias Pranita knowingly committed the offence of robbery and murder of Smt. Satteri alias gokul and thereby committed the offences under Sections 397 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.2 Prashant Dattu Naik and Accused no. 3 Smt. Lata Dattu Naik did cause evidence relating to gold ornaments worn by the said deceased to disappear by concealing them in the wall of their house at Pimpalcotto, Quepem and which ornaments were subsequently buried by accused no. 3 in the hearth (chul) of their house with the intention of screening accused no. 1 from legal punishment and that accused nos. 2 and 3 thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The three accused were further charged that on the same day and place accused no. 1 knowingly committed the offence of robbery and murder of Smt. Satteri alias Gokul under Sections 397 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were cognizant thereof and that accused nos. 2 and 3 intentionally omitted to give information of the said offences which they were legally bound to give, and thereby accused nos. 2 and 3 committed an offence punishable under Section 202 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 3. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, South Goo, at Margao tried the three accused under the charges mentioned theretofore and after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was pleased to convict accused no. 1 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and to sentence her to imprisonment for life. Accused no. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, South Goo, at Margao tried the three accused under the charges mentioned theretofore and after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was pleased to convict accused no. 1 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and to sentence her to imprisonment for life. Accused no. 1 was further found guilty under Section 397 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. Accused no. 2 was convicted under Section 201 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years. Accused no. 2 was also found guilty of an offence under Section 202 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The two sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused No.3 was found guilty of an offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years. Accused no. 3 was further found guilty of an offence under Section 202 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. I am informed by Mrs., Albuquerque that accused no. 1, the wife of accused no. 2 Prashant committed suicide during her incarceration in the Augada jail. Prashant Dattu Naik, the appellant herein in Criminal Appeal No. 30/1989 who will hereinafter be referred to as "Accused no. 2" and Smt. Lata Dattu Naik, appellant herein in Criminal Appeal No. 22/1989 who will hereinafter be referred to as "Accused no. 3", have filed these two appeals impugning their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, South Goa, at Margao. 5. Mrs. Albuquerque, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused no. 3, Lata Dattu Naik submitted that the evidence against accused no. 3 was entirely circumstantial and that the circumstances were not such as would lead to the inevitable conclusion that it was Accused no. 3 who had committed the crime of concealing evidence for the purpose of screening accused no. 1, under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Mrs. Albuquerque contended that accused no. 3 had only pointed out the hearth where the ornaments had been kept concealed. Thereafter the ornaments were dug out from the hearth by accused no. 1. Mrs. 3 who had committed the crime of concealing evidence for the purpose of screening accused no. 1, under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Mrs. Albuquerque contended that accused no. 3 had only pointed out the hearth where the ornaments had been kept concealed. Thereafter the ornaments were dug out from the hearth by accused no. 1. Mrs. Albuquerque pointed out that there was no evidence that accused no. 3 was aware of the fact that her daughter-in-law (accused no. 1) had committed the offence of murder and thereafter had committed robbery of the ornaments of the deceased Gokul. If these two vital facts were unknown to accused no. 3 Lata, then it could not be stated that she had concealed the evidence with a view to screening or shielding accused no. 1. 6. In order to appreciate the submission made by Mrs. Albuquerque it may be pertinent to consider the evidence of panch witness Aryakumar Zambaulikar (P.W. 12). Zambaulikar deposed that he was the Deputy Sarpanch be Rivona Panchayat. He knew the three accused present in the Court. On 3rd August, 1988 Zambaulikar was called by the Police to act as a panch at the cottage of the accused. Several people had gathered there. Accused nos. 1 and 2 were also present at the cottage along with the Police. The police asked Zambaulikar to listen to what accused no. 1 had to state. Accused no. I stated to the police and the panchas that she had hidden the ornaments in the all of her house (onti). At this time accused no. 3 was not present. The front door of the cottage was locked. Accused No. 2 searched for the key. However he could not find the same. Accused no. 2 Prashant thereupon broke the lock with the help of an iron bar. After the front door of the cottage was opened, the police and the panchas along with accused nos. 1 and 2 entered the front room. The wall of the room was searched. However nothing was found in the niche. While accused nos. 1 and 2 were searching for the ornaments accused no. 3 arrived there. Accused nos. 1 and 2 thereupon asked accused no. 3 as to where she had kept the gold ornaments. Accused no. 3 stated that the articles had been kept inside the hearth (chul). The second room was found to be locked. While accused nos. 1 and 2 were searching for the ornaments accused no. 3 arrived there. Accused nos. 1 and 2 thereupon asked accused no. 3 as to where she had kept the gold ornaments. Accused no. 3 stated that the articles had been kept inside the hearth (chul). The second room was found to be locked. Accused no. 2 opened the lock. Accused no. 3 brought on 'koiti' and gave it to the accused no. 1. Accused no. 1 dug inside the hearth and removed a cloth bag which was found to contain one gold chain, one patli and earrings. The police took charge of these ornaments under a panchanama (Exh. 12/A). 7. Now there is no dispute that this evidence of zambaulikar is the only incriminating evidence against accused no. 3 Lata. It is on the strength of this evidence that accused no. 3 was found guilty by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge of the offence under Section 201 as also Section 202 of I.P.C. Section 201 provides that whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false committed an offence punishable with a period of imprisonment mentioned in the said Section. Now it is pertinent to point out that in order to bring a charge home under Section 201 the prosecution has to prove two ingredients. First of all, that the accused knew or had reason to believe that an offence had been committed and with that knowledge cause evidence of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. There is not a tittle of evidence to show that accused no. 3 Lata knew that her daughter-in-law Geeta (accused no. 1)\ had committed the murder of Gokul and thereafter committed robbery of the ornaments. Therefore the first ingredient of the offence under Section 201 has not been proved by the prosecution. The evidence of Zambualikar shows that when accused no. 3 Lata entered the cottage both accused nos. 1 and 2 requested her to show where the ornaments had been hidden and accused no. 3 thereupon pointed out that the ornaments had been concealed in the hearth. The evidence of Zambualikar shows that when accused no. 3 Lata entered the cottage both accused nos. 1 and 2 requested her to show where the ornaments had been hidden and accused no. 3 thereupon pointed out that the ornaments had been concealed in the hearth. Even if this evidence was accepted as true it would only show that accused no. 3 knew that certain ornaments had been concealed in the hearth. The most that can be stated against accused no. 3 could be that it was she who had taken the ornaments which had been concealed in the niche of the wall in the front room and had hidden the ornaments thereafter in the hearth. In any event there is no evidence to show that accused no. 3 Lata was cognizant of the fact that her daughter-in-law had committed the offence of murder and thereafter committed robbery of the ornaments belonging to the deceased Gokul or that knowing this fact she concealed the ornaments with a view to screen her daughter-in-law. I am therefore of the view that two important ingredients of the offence under Section 201 have not been proved by the prosecution and therefore the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge of causing disappearance of the evidence of offence under Section 201 I.P.C. 8. The same may be stated with regard to the offence under Section 202. Section 202 provides that whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished in a certain manner. As I have stated hereto fore there is no evidence whatever to show that accused no. 3 knew of the fact that her daughter-in-law had committed the murder of Gokul and had thereafter committed robbery of the ornaments worn by the deceased. I am therefore of the view that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge under Section 202 of the I.P.C. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge therefore has erred in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the offences under Section 202 and Section 201 of the I.P.C. against accused no. 3. Accused No.3 would be entitled to the benefit of doubt and to an acquittal. 9. With regard to the case of accused no. Sessions Judge therefore has erred in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the offences under Section 202 and Section 201 of the I.P.C. against accused no. 3. Accused No.3 would be entitled to the benefit of doubt and to an acquittal. 9. With regard to the case of accused no. 2 the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 30/1989 the case stands on a different footing. The prosecution evidence against accused no. 2 Prashant consists of the evidence given by Aryaknmar Zambaulikar (P.W. 12), which I have already analysed, the evidence of Mussa Mohamad Pathan (P.W. 23) and the confession made by accused no. 2 Prashant to the learned Magistrate. 10. I shall now consider the evidence of Mussa Mohamad Pathan (P.W. 23). Mussa Mohamad deposed that he was a resident of Quepem and he knew accused no. 2 One day he had gone to visit accused no. 2 at his house. While he was there he suffered from stomach upset. He therefore stayed the night at the house of accused no. 2. On the next day morning accused no. l's wife Geeta asked for a sum of Rs. 50/- from accused no. 2 When questioned by accused no. 2 as to why she wanted that amount, she told accused no. 2 that she had kept her gold chain in her house and she would bring the same. Accused no. 2 Prashant thereupon brought a sum of Rs. 50/- from his mother and handed over the same to Geeta. Geeta however did not return on that day. On the next day morning a motor cycle rider came to the house of accused no. 2 and informed him that Geeta was waiting at the Margao but stand. Accused no. 2 therefore went with the motor cycle rider and brought Geeta home. Accused Geeta was holding something' in her fist But she did not show it to accused no. 2. Accused no. 2 then assaulted her. Accused Geeta thereupon gave a gold chain, which she held in her fist to accused No.2. Accused no. 2 gave the same to his mother. Geeta also had a Rs. 50/- note in her fist Accused no. 2's mother Lata stated that the gold chain had not been made in Karwar but had been made in Goa. Accused Geeta thereupon gave a gold chain, which she held in her fist to accused No.2. Accused no. 2 gave the same to his mother. Geeta also had a Rs. 50/- note in her fist Accused no. 2's mother Lata stated that the gold chain had not been made in Karwar but had been made in Goa. Geeta also had a bag inside the fold of her saree but Mussa Mohamad could not make out what was inside that bag. Geeta and Prashant then went inside' the room and there was some talk between the two but Mussa Mohamad could not hear the same. On the next day Geeta went to Karwar and accused no. 3 Lata gave a sum of Rs. 20/- to Geeta for proceeding to Karwar. The evidence of panch Zambaulikar (P.W. 12) as also the evidence of Muss a Mohamad Pathan (P.W. 23) does not in any way implicate accused no. 2 Prashant of the offence under Section 201 or of Section 202 I.P.C. The evidence of these two witnesses does not go to show that accused no. 2 was aware of the fact that his wife Geeta had committed the murder of Gokul and that having committed the murder she committed robbery of the ornaments, which were on the person of the deceased. However, in the course of the investigation the Police had produced accused no. 2 before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate had recorded the confession of accused no. 2 under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the course of recording the statement, the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Mr. Francisco Costs asked a number of questions to accused no. 2 to find out whether accused no. 2 was making the confession voluntarily. After questioning the accused no. 2 in some detail the learned Magistrate noted down the following confession made by accused no. 2: "On the next day one messenger was sent to my place. I alongwith the said messenger on the motorcycle went at Quepem B us Stand. I picked up my wife and came home. My wife showed me one pair of earrings, one gold ornament (Patli) and one chain. Initially my wife did not disclose as to from where she obtained the gold ornaments. However, after I slapped her she disclosed the true fact. She also pleaded to help her to hide the ornaments. I picked up my wife and came home. My wife showed me one pair of earrings, one gold ornament (Patli) and one chain. Initially my wife did not disclose as to from where she obtained the gold ornaments. However, after I slapped her she disclosed the true fact. She also pleaded to help her to hide the ornaments. Accordingly I had hidden the gold ornaments in the wall. On the same day my wife took some money from me and alongwith baby girl went to Karwar." Now this confession made by accused no. 2 reveals that accused No.1 Geeta had disclosed to her husband (accused no. 2) the fact that she had commiued murder as also the fact that she had Committed robbery of the ornaments since accused no. 2 questioned her as to where she had brought the ornaments from. Accused no. 1 also pleaded with her husband to hid the Said ornaments and accordingly accused no. 2 Prashant did so. This confession of accused no. 2 would therefore show that not only was Prashant cognizant of the fact that his wife had committed the offence of murder and robbery but that he hid the gold ornaments with a view to screen his wife from discovery. If that be so then the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was justified in concluding that the offence under Section 201 as also under Section 202 of Indian Penal Code had been proved through the mouth of accused no. 2. I am therefore of the view that the learned Magistrate was correct in convicting accused no. 2 under Section 201 as also under Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code. There is therefore no reason for any interference with the conviction or the sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 11. In the result Criminal Appeal No. 22/1989 filed by Lata Dattu Naik is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge against accused no. 3 under Section 201 and Section 202 are set aside Accused no. 3 shall be set at liberty forthwith. Criminal Appeal No. 30/1989 filed by Prashant Dattu Naik is dismissed and his conviction and sentence are confirmed. Appeal partly allowed.