Judgment :- (These Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgments dated 31.3.2000 passed in S.C.Nos.13 and 14 of 1999 respectively, by the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.) Criminal Appeal No.372 of 2000 is filed against the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 201 IPC passed in S.C.No.13 of 1999 dated 31.3.2000 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem sentencing her to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo further one year simple imprisonment. 2. Criminal Appeal No:425 of 2000 is filed against the conviction under Sections 304(Part-II) and 201 IPC passed in S.C.No.14 of 1999 dated 31.3.2000 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem sentencing him to spend a period of three years in the Reformatory School. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) P.W.1 is elder brother of the deceased. When P.W.1 went for paying school fees for his son, he was informed by unknown two persons that his brother's whereabout is not known. P.W.1 asked the accused about his brother and she replied that she did not come home from yesterday night but his footwear were seen in the sugarcane factory. P.W.1 went there and he could not see him. Thereafter he went to his father's house; sister's house and other places but he could not find him anywhere. At last, the accused 1 and 2 informed P.W.1 that they have committed murder of the deceased and buried the body in a near place. P.W.1 and his brother Murugesan complained the same to the Village Munsif and who recorded the same. (b) P.W.1 went to the police station and submitted the report of the Village Munsif before the police station. P.W.2 is also a brother of the deceased. On 9.7.96 when P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the house of the accused the accused admitted the fact that they murdered the deceased and buried at Puluzhi Kadu. The Juvenile accused has given a statement before the Village Administrative Officer and he recorded his statement, which was witnessed by P.W.2 and P.W.1. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are residents of Vattakadu. P.W.5 is Village Assistant. P.W.6 is a teacher of the school where juvenile accused had studied. The Juvenile accused has given a statement before the Village Administrative Officer and he recorded his statement, which was witnessed by P.W.2 and P.W.1. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are residents of Vattakadu. P.W.5 is Village Assistant. P.W.6 is a teacher of the school where juvenile accused had studied. (c) P.W.10, Village Administrative Officer submitted his report Ex.P9 to the police station and returned back to the place of occurrence. The Inspector of Police went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P10 observation mahazar. He also recovered the material objects 1 to 5 under a cover of mahazar Ex.P11. He also recovered M.O.6 series under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.12. Before the Tahsildar the buried body was dug out and where M.Os. 7 and 8 were recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P13 and M.O.9 was recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P14. (d) P.W.13, who was working as Sub Inspector of Police on 11.7.1996 at Omalur Police Station, on the basis of the statement given by Ravi, juvenile accused, and the complaint given by the VAO, registered a case in Crime No.1033 of 1996 under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P19 F.I.R. He sent the F.I.R. and the statement given by the juvenile accused to the Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter he sent the case records to the Inspector of Police for further investigation. (e) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, Omalur Police Station on the the basis of the information received over phone from the Outpost police of Vellalapatti, on 11.7.1996 went to the Outpost Station and received the express F.I.R. and took up the case for investigation. He arrested the accused at Outpost police station. Pursuant to the confession statement given by the accused, P.W.16 went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.5 observation mahazar and Ex.P.28 rough sketch in the presence of witnesses viz. Jagadeesan and Irusan. At the request of P.W.16, the photographer took photographs at the place of occurrence on five different angles. Photo copies and negatives are Exs. P.3 and P4 series. P.W.16 recovered M.Os.1 to 6 in front of the witnesses. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Then he sent the juvenile accused to the Omalur Hospital for treatment under a Memo. He also made a request to dig the buried body to the Tahsildar. Photo copies and negatives are Exs. P.3 and P4 series. P.W.16 recovered M.Os.1 to 6 in front of the witnesses. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Then he sent the juvenile accused to the Omalur Hospital for treatment under a Memo. He also made a request to dig the buried body to the Tahsildar. (f) P.W.14, Tahsildar on the request of P.W.16 went to Vattakkadu Valavu and in his presence the body was dug out. He also prepared Ex.P.20 requisition for post mortem. P.W.9, Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Salem, examined the body on 12.7.1996 at l0.30 a.m. P.W.9 who conducted the postmortem found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: "Injuries:- 1.A contusion on left temporal region of scalp ecms x 1 cm x 0.5 cm. 2.Contusion on right cheek, 5 cms x 3 cms x 0.5 cm. Dark Red. 3.Communited fracture right maxilla present. 4.Abrasion left cheek, 3 cms x 2 cms. 5.Contusion parietal region of scalp, 8 cms x 5 cms x 0.5 cm – Dark Red. 6.Laceration upper part of occipital region of scalp, 5 cms x 0.5 cm x bone deep. 7.Fissured fracture right parietal bone extending on to right temporal bone, 15 cms in length. 8.Fissured fracture left parietal bone, 7 cms in length 9.Fracture anterior cranial fossa Communited in nature. 10.Dura torn on right parietal region, brain matter liquified. 11.Contusion left wrist, 3 cms x 0.5 cms x 0.5 cm. 12.Contusion left leg, middle 1/3rd, 4 cms x 2 cms x 0.5 cms. 13.Contusion medial aspect of lower 1/3rd of left thigh, 5 cms x 2 cms x 0.5 cm. 14.Laceration front of upper 1/3rd of right leg, 2 cms x 1cm x 0.05 cm. 15.Abrasion left infra scapular region of back, 3 cms x 1 cm. 16.Fracture right tibia and fibula on their lower 1/3rd. 17.Fracture dislocation upper, middle fortieth present and left lateral incisor on lower jaw." (g) P.W.9 also opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries. Ex.P7 is the postmortem report. (h) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and remanded the accused to judicial custody. Ex.P29 is the admitted portion of confession statement of the juvenile accused. Ex.P30 is the admitted portion of the confession statement of the accused (mother). On 13.7.1996, he further examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (h) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and remanded the accused to judicial custody. Ex.P29 is the admitted portion of confession statement of the juvenile accused. Ex.P30 is the admitted portion of the confession statement of the accused (mother). On 13.7.1996, he further examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 14.7.1996 he also examined the Dr. Suriyamurthy and one Head Constable Palanisamy and recorded their statements. He sent the case properties to the Judicial Magistrate with a request to send the same for chemical analysis. (i) P.W.15, Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur examined the accused and recorded their statement under Section 164 Crl.P.C. He also examined P.Ws.23 to 27 and recorded their statements. Ex.P17 is the chemical analyst report and Ex.P18 is the serologist report. On 23.7.1996, P.W.16 also examined Dr. Vallinayagam and recorded his statement. On 26.7.1996 after the completion of investigation he filed a charge sheet against both the accused. (j) Before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.16 were examined, Exs.P1 to P28 and M.O.1 to M.O.15 were marked. On behalf of the accused no witness was examined and Ex.D1 and D2 were marked. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same as false. (k) On consideration of both oral and documentary evidences, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 302 is not proved and only the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. is made out against the accused in Crl. Appeal No:372/2000 and sentenced her to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment besides imposing a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo further period of one year simple imprisonment. He also convicted the juvenile accused in S.C.No.14 of 1999 for the offence under Sections 304 (Part-II) and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced him for each offences to spend a period of three years in reformation school and the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence these criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants. 4. Mr. Gopinath, the learned Senior counsel for Mr. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence these criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants. 4. Mr. Gopinath, the learned Senior counsel for Mr. L. Mahendran learned counsel for the appellants would contend that once the juvenile accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. the question of screening of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC does not arise. Particularly in this case, the evidence of the teacher of the school where the juvenile accused had studied stated that he is a good student both in conduct and education. The deceased is a drunkard. He was in the habit of beating his wife as well as his son frequently. On the fateful night at 10.00 p.m. the deceased came to the house in a drunken mood and abused his wife in filthy language and when the juvenile accused intervened and requested not to abuse his mother, the deceased beat the juvenile accused with chapel. Thereafter the juvenile accused along with his mother went away and sitting under a coconut tree. At about 1.00 p.m. when he intended to take away his cloths and books and came to his house, he found that the utensils were damaged and his text books were burnt in front of his house. He went inside and saw his father was sleeping. Thus because of the activities of the father, particularly enraged by the setting fire of his text books by his father and by such sudden provocation he took the crowbar and attacked his father on his head, which resulted in his death. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, wife of the deceased, would contend that she was not present at all in the place of occurrence. She has no motive to commit murder of her husband and screen the offence. She came to know the incident when her minor son told that he killed the deceased due to sudden provocation because his text-books were burnt. To save her school going minor son, she attempted to screen the offence committed by her minor son, but later admitted the offence. She came to know the incident when her minor son told that he killed the deceased due to sudden provocation because his text-books were burnt. To save her school going minor son, she attempted to screen the offence committed by her minor son, but later admitted the offence. That is why the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem acquitted both the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He further submitted that the accused had admitted the offence by their confession statements and only on the basis of their confession statements charges levelled against the accused are held to be proved. 6. To sustain the prosecution case under Section 201 I.P.C the following ingredients have to be fulfilled:- 1) committal of an offence; 2) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed; 3) persons charged with the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. should have caused disappearance of evidence or should have given false information regarding the main offence; and 4) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. 7. For causing the disappearance of the evidence of murder, the two indispensable basic ingredients which the prosecution cannot escape from establishing, for all the three tiers in Section 201 are: (1) The accused should have had the knowledge that an offence has been committed or at least that he should have had reasons to believe it. (2) He should have caused disappearance of evidence of commission of that offence. 8. In the present case, the aforesaid two ingredients have been established by the prosecution for conviction of the accused under Section 201. 9. As regards the offence committed by the juvenile accused, the learned Sessions Judge rightly held that the same would attract Section 304(ii) IPC and not Section 302 IPC. As far as this case is concerned, there is no eye witness for the offence committed by both the accused. In fact, The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem has imposed the conviction and sentence against the juvenile accused mainly on the basis of the confession statement given by him. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants prays that some leniency may be shown with regard to sentence imposed on the juvenile accused. In fact, The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem has imposed the conviction and sentence against the juvenile accused mainly on the basis of the confession statement given by him. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants prays that some leniency may be shown with regard to sentence imposed on the juvenile accused. Considering the fact that the offence against the juvenile accused is only due to a sudden provocation and not by any pre-medidated intention viz, enraged over the act of his deceased father, who is a drunkard, had beaten him with chappel and also abused his mother and put to flames his textbooks, he has attacked his father with a crow bar on his head. The Sessions Judge also observed that the Teacher of the Reformatory School had reported that the conduct of the juvenile accused is satisfactory and he is studying well. In these circumstances, taking into consideration of the age of the juvenile accused also, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met with, if the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused is reduced to two years. 11. As regards the accused in Crl.A.No:372 of 2000, who is the mother of the juvenile accused, it cannot be said that both of them have screened the offence, though initially attempted to screen the offence committed by them. In the presence of P.W.1 and Village Administrative Officer, they have given confession statements and only on that basis the prosecution proceeded with the case. In such circumstances I am of the view that some leniency can be shown to this accused also. Accordingly, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed on this accused is reduced to two years. 12. In the result, the conviction of the accused in Crl.A.No.372/2000 under Section 201 IPC and the conviction of the accused in Crl.A.No:425 of 2000 under Sections 304(ii) and 201 IPC are confirmed and only the sentence of three years imposed on both the accused by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem is modified to two years. With the above modifications these criminal appeals are partly allowed. The trial court is directed to take steps to secure the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence. CRL.A.No.372 and 425 of 2000 These Criminal Appeals were listed before this court for "being mentioned". 2. With the above modifications these criminal appeals are partly allowed. The trial court is directed to take steps to secure the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence. CRL.A.No.372 and 425 of 2000 These Criminal Appeals were listed before this court for "being mentioned". 2. These Criminal appeals were disposed of by this Court by a common judgment dated 26.10.2006 confirming the conviction of the accused in both the Criminal Appeals except reducing the sentence of three years imprisonment to that of two years imprisonment. 3. Mr. S.Y. Masood, learned Counsel for the appellants has prayed for reconsideration of the conviction and sentence and submitted that this court may invoke Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and to release the offenders on probation of good conduct. 4. However, Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act can be invoked only at the time of convicting the accused i.e., while deciding the revision or appeal, and the court cannot invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act after delivery of judgment. Because under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Thus it would be clear that after pronouncement of its verdict in a criminal case the court becomes functus officio and it cannot review its own decision at a later point of time. 5. Even the inherent power cannot be invoked to do something prohibited by Code as has been held by the Apex Court in Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, reported in AIR 2001 SC 43 wherein it has been held that an order passed by the High Court imposing specific period of minimum sentence cannot be modified by fling an application under Section 482 Crl.P.C., In Bibekananda Das V. State (1997 Crl.L.J., 4029 Orissa), it has been held that the High Court cannot, after disposal of the revision petition, entertain the petition to invoke Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as it would amount to review of judgment which is not permissible under Section 362. 6. Even the decision relied on by the counsel for the appellants in Channi Vs. 6. Even the decision relied on by the counsel for the appellants in Channi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2006 (2) LW (Crl) 992 is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it is distinguishable on facts. In the said decision the High Court of Allahabad decided the Criminal Appeal on merits after hearing the learned Government Advocate and without hearing the counsel for the appellant as he was absent. Later when an application was moved before the said High Court for modifications of the conviction and for invoking Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the High Court refused to entertain the said application. On appeal, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case the Apex Court directed the Allahabad High Court to consider the application under the Probation Act or Section 360 of the Code as the case may be and pass appropriate orders. Such is not the position here. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is liable to be rejected. Therefore, no fresh orders need be passed in these appeals.