JUDGMENT Faizan Uddin, J. 1. In this appeal the appellant Kumari Omli has challenged her conviction under Section 201 of Penal Code for which she has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year, in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1985, decided on 5th September, 1989, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur). 2. Deceased Saroj was the wife of the co-accused Omprakash whose burnt dead body was found on 1.6.1985 in the latrine of the co-accused Sagarmal, the father-in-law of the deceased. Mst. Saroj was married to Omprakash in May, 1984. According to the prosecution, she was always ill-treated by her husband, Omprakash and his family members for bringing inadequate and insufficient dowry and it is alleged that for this reason, all the family members strangulated her to death on 1.6.1985 and later, after putting her dead body in the latrine of the house, set fire to the dead body with a view to give an impression that she had committed suicide. Her husband Omprakash made a report in the Police Station, Ambikapur that she had committed suicide. During investigation, several incriminating articles were seized. 3. Dr. P.K. Shrivastava (P.W. 11) along with Dr. Phadnis performed the autopsy over her dead body in the Government hospital, Ambikapur, who as per Post-mortem Report (Ex.P-16), found that Saroj had suffered 90 per cent burn injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia. 4. The appellant along with her brothers, Omprahash and Suresh Kumar and her parents, Sagarmal and Jankibai besides some other family members, was charged and tried for offences under Sections 302, 302/34, 201 and 498A of the Penal Code. The learned trial Judge convicted Omprakash the husband of the deceased Saroj under Sections 302, 201 and 498A while Mst. Janki, mother-in-law of the deceased and one Santosh were convicted under Sections 201 and 498A while Sagarmal, father-in-law of the deceased, was convicted under Section 498A and Suresh, elder brother of Omprakash and his sister, Kumari Omli, the appellant herein, were convicted under Section 201 only and sentenced as said above. This appeal has been filed by Kumari Omli alone challenging her conviction and sentence under Section 201 of the Penal Code. 5. This appeal has been filed by Kumari Omli alone challenging her conviction and sentence under Section 201 of the Penal Code. 5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the appellant is an unmarried girl, aged about 19 years and that her mere presence in the house could not constitute an offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code in the absence of any proof of the ingredients of that Section There appears to be much substance in this submission. It may be pointed out that while convicting the appellant under Section 201, the learned trial Judge took into consideration the facts that when the body of deceased Saroj was found burning, the appellant and other convicted co-accused took no steps to extinguish the fire and that the appellant along with the other co-accused was present there only as silent spectator. In our considered opinion, the fact that the appellant was a silent spectator and made no attempt to extinguish the fire alone may not be sufficient to convict her for an offence under Section 201. In order to convict a person for an offence under Section 201, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that the person charged has caused any evidence of commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention gave any information respecting the offence which he/she knows or believes to be false. 6. The expression "cause" occurring in Section 201 has not been defined. In ordinary and general parlence as well as the dictionary meaning of the word "cause" means, to bring into existence which envisages same sort of active step on the part of the doer of the act in the matter of causing disappearance of evidence relating to a particular offence. The person charged under Section 201 must be proved to have actively participated in the matter of disappearance of evidence and not merely allow the same to disappear by mere acquiscence. Further, the act committed must have been done with an intention of screening the real offender from legal punishment and mere knowledge that it is likely to do so is not enough because the Section speaks of intention which is distinct from the mere likelihood of it. Further, the act committed must have been done with an intention of screening the real offender from legal punishment and mere knowledge that it is likely to do so is not enough because the Section speaks of intention which is distinct from the mere likelihood of it. In the present case, there is no material to suggest that the appellant, Kumari Omli caused any evidence of the commission of the offence of alleged murder of Saroj to disappear either with the intention of screening the offender or gave any information in respect of the offence which she knew of believed to be false. There is also no material to suggest that the appellant had reason to believe that the offence of murder of Sarojbai was committed by any of her family members. She was almost youngest member of the family and in the presence of her parents and elder brothers, she could not be expected to take any steps either with regard to the extinguishment of the fire or do any other thing at that moment as she must have been under a shock seeing her Bhabhi having been burnt. This fact finds support from the evidence of Ramchandra Agarwal (P.W. 9) who, in paragraph 5 of his deposition, stated that she seemed to be under shock. Gauri Shankar (P.W. 3) also deposed that appellant was crying Bachao, Bachao, which indicates that she was sore on the incident and was crying for help. Thus, in the facts and circumstances stated above, it is difficult to accept that the appellant can be said to have done anything to cause the evidence of commission of the offence to disappear with the intention of screening the real offender or that she gave any information respecting the offence which she knew or believed to be false. The ingredients of Section 201 are not established at all so far as the present appellant is concerned and, therefore, her conviction under Section 201 of the Penal Code could not be sustained. In this connection a reference be also made of the decisions in Raghva Prapanna v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1963 SC 74 ) and Shamim Rehmani v. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 1883). 7. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 201 of the Penal Code with sentence thereon is set aside. 7. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 201 of the Penal Code with sentence thereon is set aside. The appellant is on bail. Her bail bond stands caccelled.