Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 266 (HP)

TEJ SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2000-09-28

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, R.L.KHURANA

body2000
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was tried for committing the murder of one Mahatma, Baba of Bhagot (hereinafter referred to the "deceased") and was convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302 IPC and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1998 on 31.10.1998. Both substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, the accused is in appeal before this Court. 2. The prosecution case was that one Mahatma, namely, Baba Gian Chand used to reside in village Lunharghat in Tehsil and District, Chamba for the last about 25 years who died on 28-7-1997. The villagers had gathered near the temple to perform the last rites of Baba Gian Chand. Another Mahatma, namely, Baba of Bhagot was called to finalize the ways and procedure for the cremation of deceased Baba Gian Chand. Baba of Bhagot arrived at about 2.30 p.m. on the said day and after due debate and consultation with him, it was decided that Baba Gian Chand was not to be cremated but he was to be buried and a Samadhi was to be built in his memory. There were about 150 persons present at the place where the grave was to be dug out to bury the dead body of Baba Gian Chand. The accused was also present at that time and objected to the decision taken by Baba of Bhagot on the ground that Samadhi has to be taken by those persons who are alive and not by dead person. The accused was also present at that time and objected to the decision taken by Baba of Bhagot on the ground that Samadhi has to be taken by those persons who are alive and not by dead person. The accused as per the prosecution became enraged by the decision taken by Baba of Bhagot to bury the dead body of deceased Baba Gian Chand in the grave and he wielded a blow of Drat on the head of Baba of Bhagot which incidentally did not hit directly on his head but the blow first struck against the branch of plum tree and thereafter it struck against the head of Baba of Bhagot. The blow of Drat resulted causing blood injury on the head of Baba of Bhagot. It was also alleged that in the same transaction, the said blow of Drat also caused injury to one Ambika Prashad. The accused did not stop there and after throwing the Drat on the ground, he picked up a Jhabbal (a long iron rod) and inflicted one blow of it on the head of Baba of Bhagot as a result of the said blow Baba fell down on the ground. On seeing the incident, all the villagers who had gathered at that place fled away from there due to fear of violence to which the accused had resorted to. Baba of Bhagot died on the spot due to the injuries suffered by him at the hands of the accused. Subsequently, at about 3.30 p.m. on the same day, the incident was reported to the police by Manak Chand (PW-1) President of Gram Panchayat, Kiyani. SI Sadhu Ram (PW-11) immediately reached on the spot of occurrence and found that the dead bodies of Baba Gian Chand and Baba or Bhagot were missing and the empty grave dug out by the villagers for burying dead body of Baba Gian Chand was found covered with soil. The accused was not present there at that time. The police moved an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chamba on the same day seeking his permission for digging out the bodies of both Mahatmas from the grave and Sh Ml. Sharma (PW-14) accordingly granted the permission. The dead bodies of Baba of Bhagot and Baba Gian Chand were found inside the grave which were taken into possession by the police and then despatched to the District Hospital, Chamba for .post-mortem. Sharma (PW-14) accordingly granted the permission. The dead bodies of Baba of Bhagot and Baba Gian Chand were found inside the grave which were taken into possession by the police and then despatched to the District Hospital, Chamba for .post-mortem. On the basis of the statement of PW-Manak Chand recorded by the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. First Information Report (Ex.PQ) was registered on the same day at 6 p.m. in Police Station Sadar, Chamba under Sections 320 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. SI Sadhu Ram made search for the accused, who fled away from the scene of occurrence and was not found available in his house till he was arrested on 30.7-1997. The accused made disclosure statement (Ex. PN) during the investigation of the case which led the recovery of Drat, weapon of offence. 3. Two inquest reports (Ex. PC) and (Ex. PD) were prepared on the spot by the investigating officer and recovery memos for taking into possession Drat, apparels, two site plans (Ex. PU) and (Ex. PV) were prepared on the spot. After the receipt of the post-mortem reports (Exts. PR and PS) in respect of the dead bodies of deceased Mahatma Baba of Bhagot and Baba Gian Chand as well as report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex-P-2), the investigation was completed by the police and charge sheet was laid before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba against the accused who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge. 4. On consideration of the police report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and other materials, the learned Sessions Judge, prima facie, found the case against the accused and charged him under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case led oral as well as documentary evidence. The oral evidence consists of the statements of fourteen witnesses, namely, Manak Chand (PW-1) Mahinder Pal (PW-2) and Ambika Parshad (PW-3) the eye-witnesses, Harish Kumar (PW-4), Chain Singh Head Constable (PW7) Rajesh Kumar Constable (PW-8), ASI Swaroo Ram (PW-10), Rajesh David (PW-12) and M.L. Sharma, SDM (PW-14), were the formal witnesses; Dr. S.K. Jaryan (PW-9) conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Baba of Bhagot and the dead body of Baba Gian Chand, while Dr. S.K. Jaryan (PW-9) conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Baba of Bhagot and the dead body of Baba Gian Chand, while Dr. Mohan Kumar Attri (PW-6) conducted the medical examination of Ambika Parshad (PW-3). The accused made disclosure statement (Ex. PN) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the presence of Munwar Beg (PW-5). SI Sadhu Ram (PW-11) and Inspector Kishori Lai (PW-13) were the investigating officers. The documentary evidence consisting of seizure memos (Exts. PA to PG and PJ); inquest reports (Exts. PC and PD); and post-mortem reports (Exts. PR and PS); site plans (Exts, PU and PV); Tatima (Ex. PK); copy of Jamabandi (Ex. PM); report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. PZ); Ruqa (Ex. PF) and a copy of FIR (Ex. PQ) were produced on record. In addition to the documentary evidence, the police has also taken into possession branch of plum tree (Ex.P-1). Jhabbal (Ex.P-2); Drat (Ex. P-3); shirt (Ex.P-4) and Pajama (Ex.P-5) belonging to the accused. 6. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the allegations of the prosecution levelled against him and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the crime by Manak Chand, President of Gram Panchayat who entertained enmity against him due to some land dispute and Panchayat election. In his defence, he examined Dharam Chand (DW-1). 7. On appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the commission of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and accordingly convicted him. Being aggrieved, the accused has challenged the legality and correctness of his conviction and sentence in this appeal, 8. We have heard Mr. Jagdish Vats learned counsel for the accused and Mr. M.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and re-appraised the entire evidence on record and also the reasonings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge holding the accused guilty of the charges levelled against him. 9. Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned counsel contended that the testimony of the alleged eye witness (PW-1) does not inspire confidence, in view of the version of other eye-witnesses namely, PWs-2 and 3 and therefore, the reasonings of the learned Sessions Judge are erroneous. We have examined the evidence of PW-1. 9. Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned counsel contended that the testimony of the alleged eye witness (PW-1) does not inspire confidence, in view of the version of other eye-witnesses namely, PWs-2 and 3 and therefore, the reasonings of the learned Sessions Judge are erroneous. We have examined the evidence of PW-1. He has partially resiled from his previous statement whereas PWs 2 and 3 have completely turned hostile to the prosecution in their deposition before the court below. PW-1 was the President of the Gram Panchayat Kiyani at the relevant time and supported the prosecution case to the effect that the accused had inflicted Drat blow on the head of Baba of Bhagot (deceased) as a result of which he received bleeding injury on his head. He stated that Drat blow could not hit directly against the head of the deceased and it firstly hit against the branch of Plum tree and after striking the branch, a tip of the Drat struck on the head of the deceased as a result of which blood injury was sustained by him. His version was that the Drat blow also hit PW-3. He maintained that after striking the first blow of Drat, the accused had picked up a Jhabbal which was lying at the place of the occurrence but before the accused could use it for inflicting injury on the deceased, he along with other persons who had gathered at the scene of occurrence, left the place due to fear. He identified the branch of Plum tree (Ext. P-l) and Jhabbal (Ext.P-2). He has also proved on record Inquest reports (Exts. PC and PD). prepared in his presence. He admitted his statement (Ext. PF) recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C. by the Police but said that portion A to A of said statement relating to causing injury to the deceased by means of Jhabbal was not made by him. In his cross-examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor, he maintained his earlier version that the accused had not given the blow of Jhabbal to the deceased in his presence. In the cross-examination of the learned defence counsel, he explained that he and PW-2 were sitting at a distance of 12-13 ft. away from the grave being laid for burying Baba Gian Chand and Baba Bhagot was sitting under the Plum tree and the accused was at a distance of 6 to 7 ft. In the cross-examination of the learned defence counsel, he explained that he and PW-2 were sitting at a distance of 12-13 ft. away from the grave being laid for burying Baba Gian Chand and Baba Bhagot was sitting under the Plum tree and the accused was at a distance of 6 to 7 ft. from the Plum tree. He emphatically denied the suggestion of the accused that the accused had not inflicted Drat blow on the head of the deceased in his presence and further maintained that PW-2 was also present at the time when the blow of Drat was given by the accused on the head of the deceased. The evidence of PW-1 was consistent and convincing to prove that Drat blow was given by the accused on the head of the deceased and his testimony to that extent has not been shaken by the accused. No suggestion was put to the witness to prove that he was in any way inimical towards the accused on account of some land dispute between the accused and the witness and due to some Panchayat election. It appears that defence taken by the accused that PW-1 was inimical towards him was an afterthought and the false plea of the accused cannot be considered a ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 to the extent it has been found truthful and reliable. 10. It is well settled law that false explanation given by the accused provides additional links in the circumstances appearing against the accused as held by the apex Court in Kuldeep Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 7. The presence of PW-1 at the scene .of occurrence has been corroborated by PWs 2 and 3 who have also admitted their presence when the dead body of Baba Gian Chand was taken to the place where it was to be buried. 11. PW-2 is the Vice President of Gram Panchayat, Kiyani. The presence of PW-1 at the scene .of occurrence has been corroborated by PWs 2 and 3 who have also admitted their presence when the dead body of Baba Gian Chand was taken to the place where it was to be buried. 11. PW-2 is the Vice President of Gram Panchayat, Kiyani. He deposed that on 28-7-1997 he had gone with PW-1 to Lunhar Ghat in connection with death of Baba Gian Chand and when they reached there they saw about hundred persons present at that place and the grave was being laid to bury the dead body of Baba Gian Chand and that in the meantime, Baba of Bhaghot had also reached there who had explained the mode and procedure in respect of performing the last rites of Baba Gian Chand. He further stated that when he and PW-1 were sitting at a distance of 10-15 ft. from the place where grave was laid, there was a noise and the people were shouting "Drat Mara Drat Mara" and after hearing these words he stood up and saw that blood was oozing out from the head of Baba of Bhaghot. PW-1 told him that they should run away from the scene of occurrence and accordingly both of them had left the place. When the witness was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime and further said that subsequently, he came to know that the accused had killed Baba of Bhaghot. He deposed that accused was not found available after the occurrence and when he was arrested by the Police Drat was recovered at his instance. PW-3 admitted his presence on the scene of occurrence but stated that the injury received by him on his head was by means of stones. This witness is an interested witness being related to the accused and has admitted that his sister is married to the real brother of the accused. PW-3 also admitted the presence of the accused at the place of the occurrence. 12. It is well settled law of appreciation of evidence that the evidence of the hostile witness not supporting prosecution case in entirety, cannot be disbelieved and his evidence to the extent supporting prosecution case and corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon. PW-3 also admitted the presence of the accused at the place of the occurrence. 12. It is well settled law of appreciation of evidence that the evidence of the hostile witness not supporting prosecution case in entirety, cannot be disbelieved and his evidence to the extent supporting prosecution case and corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon. The evidence of PW-2 that he came to know that the accused had killed Baba of Bhaghot can be relied upon corroborating the evidence of PW-1. PW-1 promptly made the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. before the Police on the basis of which FIR came to be registered and in the said statement he has categorically stated that in addition to inflicting Drat blow on the head of the deceased by the accused, the accused also used Jhabbal lying on the spot and gave its blow on the head of Mahatma of Bhaghot Temple as a result of which Baba of Bhaghot fell down near the ditch and the name of the accused who inflicted Drat and Jhabbal blows "has been specifically mentioned in the report. 13. In Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 210, their Lordships have held that the evidence of the hostile witness to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version can be relied upon by the Court. The eye witness account of PW-1 has been corroborated by Dr. S.K. Jarian (PW-9) who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Baba of Bhaghot. The Doctor found the following three injuries on the body of the deceased:— "Injury No. 1 : Vertically oblique posteriorly wound about 2x.5 inch long and 1-5 inch deep over the right side near the external ear lobule. The margins were sharp and there was no bruising around the wound. The underlying soft tissue was cut and mendible joint end was fractured and lower end was waving freely. The main vessel of the neck in the upper anterior triangle was cut. Injury No. 2 : A lacerated wound about 1 x .5 x 1 inch diameter over the gygomatic bone near the cheek. The underlying bone was fractured with multiple pieces. Injury No. 3 : A lacerated wound about 1-1/2 inch x .5 inch over the left temporal region which was bone deep." 14. Injury No. 2 : A lacerated wound about 1 x .5 x 1 inch diameter over the gygomatic bone near the cheek. The underlying bone was fractured with multiple pieces. Injury No. 3 : A lacerated wound about 1-1/2 inch x .5 inch over the left temporal region which was bone deep." 14. In the opinion of the Doctor (PW-9) injury No. 1 could be caused by sharp edged weapon, while injuries No.2 and 3 were caused by blunt weapon. The doctor also opined that injury No. 1 could have been caused by means of Drat Ext. P-3 and injuries No. 2 and 3 could be caused by means of Jhabbal Ext. P-2. He further opined that all the injuries were individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the post mortem report (Ext. PR) has been proved on record by him. In the cross-examination the Doctor explained that the assailant could have caused injury No.l with Drat (Ext. P-3) even if he was at a distance of 6 ft. from the victim at the time of causing the said injury He clearly stated that injury No. 1 could have been caused if the blow of Drat had first struck against the branch of plum (Ext.P-1 ) and thereafter the same had struck against the head of the victim. 15. S.I. Sadhu Ram (PW-11) stated that the entire statement (Ext.PF) made by PW-1 under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to him was recorded by him correctly as per the version of PW-1 who after reading the same put his signature thereon. It has come in the evidence of Investigating officer that when he reached at the scene of occurrence, the accused had already fled away from that place which fact was disclosed to him by PW-1. The suggestion of the accused that the statement of PW-1 was recorded by him on his own and no allegation involving the accused in the commission of the alleged offence were made by PW-1 to him, has been emphatically denied by the witness. 16. The suggestion of the accused that the statement of PW-1 was recorded by him on his own and no allegation involving the accused in the commission of the alleged offence were made by PW-1 to him, has been emphatically denied by the witness. 16. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 11 brought on record, corroborated by medical evidence, we are in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence was sufficient, unambiguous and clinching appearing against the accused and he has rightly been connected with the causing of the injury on the person of the deceased by means of Drat resulting the death of Baba of Bhaghot. The testimony of PW-1 was quite credible and convincing to the extent that injury No. 1 was caused by accused on the head of the deceased with the help of Drat. The witness has withstood the test of cross-examination to that extent. The accused has not proved from his evidence that the witness has involved him in a false case due to some litigation pending between them or due to some Panchayat Election dispute because no such question was put to the witness in his cross-examination and the plea taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appears to be an afterthought. PW-1 has partially supported the prosecution case as noted above and had he been inimical towards the accused he would have entirely exonerated the accused from the commission of the crime. PW-2 wanted to shield the accused when he turned hostile to the prosecution as would be apparent from his cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor regarding the identity of the accused. He firstly stated that there were about 4-5 persons by the name of Tej Singh but later on in further cross-examination he further admitted that it was Tej Singh, accused who was missing from his house for about four days after the occurrence in question. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly stated that PW-2 has suppressed the truth regarding causing the injuries to the deceased by the accused by means of Drat. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly stated that PW-2 has suppressed the truth regarding causing the injuries to the deceased by the accused by means of Drat. The learned Sessions Judge is again right in stating that the prosecution has failed to prove that injuries No. 2 and 3 were caused by the accused by means of Jhabbal because the prosecution has failed to prove that those injuries were inflicted by the accused as the sole eye-witness has not supported the prosecution case to that extent but according to the opinion of the Doctor the two other injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by Jhabbal. 17. Apart from the above said direct evidence appearing on record and accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution has also relied upon two more circumstances. The first, being, the recovery of Drat (Ext. P-3) at the instance of the accused and the second, with respect to the conduct of the accused. The disclosure statement (Ext. PM) made by the accused on 2-8-1997 to PW-11 in the presence of PW-5 and one Liaqat Ali has been rightly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. It has come in the evidence of PW-11 that on 30-7-1997 he arrested the accused when he was coming from the jungle of village Kiani, the scene of occurrence and on interrogation the accused made disclosure statement voluntarily on 2-8-1997 when he was in Police custody in the presence of PW-5 and one Liaqat Ali stating that he had hidden the Drat in the bushes in Lunhar Ghat and he could recover the same. The accused led the Police party along with witness Liaqat Ali to Lunhar Ghat and recovered the Drat which was taken into possession. The suggestion of the defence that Drat was not recovered by the accused has been emphatically denied by the witnesses. Liaqat Ali has not been examined in the court and of course PW-5 has not supported the prosecution case about disclosure statement having been made by the accused. However, PW-5 in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor admitted his signature on the disclosure statement (Ext. PN). PW-5 also admitted that on 2-8-1997 he had visited Police Station. Chamba accompanied by Liaqat Ali PW-5 is a literate person and he could not explain as to why he had not read the contents of (Ext. However, PW-5 in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor admitted his signature on the disclosure statement (Ext. PN). PW-5 also admitted that on 2-8-1997 he had visited Police Station. Chamba accompanied by Liaqat Ali PW-5 is a literate person and he could not explain as to why he had not read the contents of (Ext. PN) before he had signed the same. Thus, it appears that the witness has tried to shield the accused on this aspect. PW-2 has corroborated the version of PW-11 to the effect that Drat Ext.P-3 was recovered at the instance of the accused. He has emphatically denied the suggestion of the defence that the recovery of Drat was disclosed by the Police and it was not recovered at the instance of the accused. From the evidence of PWs 2 and 11 corroborated by PW-1 coupled with the contents of disclosure statement (Ext. PN) and recovery of Memo. Ext. PG, it stands proved that Drat was recovered from a place pointed out by the accused at his instance when he made the disclosure statement voluntarily It is true that no blood was found on Drat by Dr. J.R. Gour, Deputy Director- State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, Shimla in his report Ext. PZ, but that circumstance by itself will not be sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution when the other evidence is cogent and satisfactory to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the recovery of Drat which was not found stained with blood is doubtful, cannot be accepted. 18. The next circumstance appearing against the accused that after the commission of the offence, the accused fled away from the scene of the occurrence and was not found available in the village from 28th July 1997 till 30th July, 1997 when he was arrested by PW-11 near his village in the jungle has been proved by PWs-1 and 2. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that after committing the crime the accused fled away from the scene of the occurrence and was not available in the village till he was arrested and their testimony has been corroborated by PW-11 the Investigating officer. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that after committing the crime the accused fled away from the scene of the occurrence and was not available in the village till he was arrested and their testimony has been corroborated by PW-11 the Investigating officer. The conduct of the accused is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and fleeing from the scene of the crime may not by itself be a circumstance to connect him with the commission of the offence but it was an additional link in the other circumstances proved on record against him. The plea of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the commission of the crime by PW-1 on account of land dispute and Panchayat Election is false for the reason noticed in the earlier part of the judgment. The evidence of Dharam Chand (DW-1) is of no help to the accused as he has not supported the defence of the accused. The accused in answers to question No. 8 recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. admitted his presence on the spot at the time of the occurrence whereas DW-1 being a ward member of the Panchayat of the accused interestingly denied the presence of the accused on the spot. DW-1 has not whispered a word about enmity between PW-1 and deceased for the reason projected by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.G. From the statement of accused and evidence of DW it would be thus evident that the accused has not only failed to prove his plea, but, he has also failed to explain his conduct. The conviction of the accused, therefore, shall stand upheld. 19. The last contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there was no motive or intention on the part of the accused to cause death of deceased and as per the prosecution case, the blow of Drat first struck on the branch of the plum tree and thereafter a tip of it struck on the head of the deceased and therefore, in these circumstances, the offence if any, committed by the accused will fall under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and not in the ambit of under Section 302 I.P.C. in view was without merit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 20. 20. Clause 3rdly of Section 300 I.P.C. consist of two parts: the first part requires that the accused has caused bodily injury to the deceased while the second part envisages that such bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 21. So far the motive is concerned the prosecution is not required to prove it when the case is based on direct evidence, and, therefore, the motive is immaterial in the present case. Once we have accepted the testimony of single eye-witness PW-1 whose credibility has not been shaken and we are convinced that he is a truthful witness and his evidence to the extent he has supported the prosecution case, has been accepted. 22. The case of the accused is clearly covered under clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC and injury No. 1 inflicted with Drat on the head of the deceased is proved to be fatal to the deceased and according to the opinion of the Doctor all the three injuries found on the body of the deceased were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It has also been proved by the Doctor that injury No.l could have been caused if the blow of Drat had first struck against the branch of Plum tree and thereafter, it struck the head of the victim. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and another, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 45, their Lordships while comparing the provisions of Sections 299 and 300 IPC have held that in Clause (3) of Section 300, instead of the words likely to cause death occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of Section 299, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" have been used. Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 23. The law laid down by the apex Court in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, on the applicability of clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC is clearly attracted in the present case that even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and does not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder. Illustration (c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out this point. 24. On re-appraisal and re-assessment of the entire evidence on record discussed hereinabove, we do not find any cogent reason to differ with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded his reasoning on sound appreciation of the evidence adduced on record and the findings are not found faulty on any ground and therefore, we accordingly, maintain the conviction of the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. 25. The ratio of the decisions of the apex Court in S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 917 and State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad and others, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 466, relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 304 IPC and not under Section 300 IPC is not applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. In S.D. Sonis case (supra), their Lordships said that where it was found that even though the accused might not have the intention to cause death, his act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death he would be considered to have committed the offence punishable under Section 304, Part II. Similarly, in State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad and others case (supra), it was held that where the accused alleged to have administered poisonous substance by way of "prasad" to deceased with an intention to cause death of the deceased, however, the accused had knowledge that he administered poisonous substance which was likely to cause grievous hurt and even death and in these circumstances, the accused was convicted under Section 304, Part II and under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to the other affected persons. 26. 26. The learned Sessions Judge also convicted the accused under Section 201 IPC on the ground that the accused remained present on the spot after the occurrence and when the other persons gathered at the spot, left the place due to fear, the dead bodies of Baba Gian Chand and Baba Bhaghot were left unattended by the persons near the grave but when the Police reached at the spot and noticed that the dead bodies of both Babas were not found there and that grave had been covered with soil, the Police sought the permission of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chamba (PW-14) to dig out the grave and after doing so, the bodies of both Babas were found buried inside the grave and individually this was found strong circumstance against the accused to infer that two dead bodies of Babas were buried by the accused and on the basis of this circumstance, the accused was held guilty under Section 201 IPC. 27. We are not inclined to accept the said reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge holding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 201 IPC. This can be one of the additional circumstance in the link of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the learned Sessions Judge in his order of conviction passed against the accused under Section 302 IPC, but the accused cannot be held guilty for the commission of the offence under Section 201 IPC. Section 201 reads as under:— "201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—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." 28. From the bare reading of the provisions of Section 201 IPC, it makes clear that the provisions will apply in the case of the accused who wanted to cause disappearance of the evidence of offence committed by some other person or caused any offence 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 and thus this Section will not apply to the person who is an accused himself of the crime. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously held the accused guilty under Section 201 IPC and his conviction and sentence under Section 201 IPC shall stand accordingly set aside. The fine imposed upon the accused under Section 201 IPC if deposited by him shall be refunded to him. 29. No other point has been urged before us by learned counsel on either side. 30. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal of the accused is partly allowed to the extent that his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC is maintained and the accused shall stand acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and to that extent the judgment and order impugned in this appeal is modified. Appeal partly allowed.