Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 384 (MP)

Anita v. State of M. P.

2004-04-20

AJIT SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT This revision by the accused persons is directed against the order dated 5.2.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 355/03 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, whereby charge for an offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against them. According to the prosecution case, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Moolchand Pateriya was murdered by the accused persons, namely, Lakhanlal, Murari Pandey and Lallu on the intervening night of 19/20.7.2003 in the house of Lakhanlal. His body was thereafter dragged by them up to a nearby railway track where it was left. They also looted Rs. 11,66,068/- from a cash box of which deceased Moolchand Pateriya was in-charge. During investigation, the police recovered Rs. 11,00,000/- alongwith blood-stained clothes of deceased Moolchand Pateriya from Lakhanlal. Blood-stains were also found in his house. Applicant No. 1 Anita had washed the blood-stained clothes of her accused husband Lakhanlal on the next morning to cause disappearance of the evidence against him. Lakhanlal had gone to the house of co-accused Murari Pandey on the evening of 20.7.2003 and after waiting for him there for sometime, he gave the shirt of his uniform, belt and cap to his wife Anju Pandey, applicant No.2 for keeping them. These articles were recovered from her by the police on her memorandum. The learned counsel for the applicants, looking to the nature of incident which took place in the house of applicant No. 1 Anita and the evidence collected against her, did not press this revision for her discharge. The order of charge against her for an offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is, therefore, hereby affirmed. As regards applicant No.2 Anju Pandey, he strenuously argued that there is absolutely no evidence in the charge-sheet against her for framing a charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He also asserted that the trial Court mechanically framed the charge against her on the ground that she had washed the blood-stained clothes of Lakhanlal which was not even the case of prosecution against her. I have perused the impugned order and the charge-sheet filed in the case. He also asserted that the trial Court mechanically framed the charge against her on the ground that she had washed the blood-stained clothes of Lakhanlal which was not even the case of prosecution against her. I have perused the impugned order and the charge-sheet filed in the case. In order to establish the charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed, that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false. The only allegation against the applicant No.2 Anju Pandey is that accused Lakhanlal had gone to the house of co-accused Murari Pandey and waited for him for sometime and when he did not come, he gave the shirt of his uniform, belt and cap to his wife Anju Pandey, the applicant No.2, for keeping them. It is not the case of the prosecution that she had washed or cleaned them for causing disappearance of the evidence with the intention to screen accused Lakhanlal from legal punishment. From the allegation levelled against applicant No.2 Anju Pandey, it cannot be held under any stretch of imagination that she had any knowledge or reason to believe that Lakhanlal had committed any offence and she had received the aforesaid articles from him with an intent to screen him from legal punishment. On the contrary, she had received the articles of Lakhanlal from him most innocent! y in the absence of her husband Murari Pandey to whom in fact Lakhanlal had gone to deliver those articles. None of these articles were even blood-stained. The trial Court apparently fell into an error in mechanically framing a charge for an offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against applicant No.2 Anju Pandey on a ground which is not even alleged against her by the prosecution. The impugned order, therefore, so far as it relates to applicant No.2 Anju Pandey, is quashed. She is discharged of the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision is partly allowed.