Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 455 (PAT)

Manoj Singh v. State of Bihar

2008-03-04

body2008
S.K. SHARMA, J.:–The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.8.1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1991 whereby the appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo R.I. for six months. 2. According to the prosecution case, one Jogendra Singh who was residing at railway quarters No. 25A/F Marshelling Yard, Gaya filed a written report before the Officer-in-Charge of Kotwali Police Station alleging therein that his daughter Guddi Devi was married with Manoj Singh S/o Ram Bilash Singh about four years ago and was blessed with two issues having a daughter aged about two and a half years and a son of eight months. Cordial relationship was prevailing between the daughter and his son-in-law. On 14.6.1990 the informant's son Sunil Kumar went to met his sister Guddi Devi but found the house locked. On query, his son came to know that his sister has been taken for cremation. After returning from the duty the informant knew this fact. He alongwith others went to the house of his daughter and met the appellant Ram Bilash Singh and asked him as to why the informant was not informed about the death. One month prior to the occurrence the informant's son-in-law Manoj Singh has asked, for rupees two or three thousand to start its business but the amount was not given due to the hardship of the informant. The informant suspected that the appellants might have murdered his daughter and cremated her. The case was registered under sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charge was framed under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defence of the accused was of false implication and also that Guddi died of natural death and she was properly treated prior to death as per the medical advice. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charge was framed under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defence of the accused was of false implication and also that Guddi died of natural death and she was properly treated prior to death as per the medical advice. 4 In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses; they are, PW 1 Binod Pandey, PW 2 Arjun Prasad, PW 3 Ganesh Prasad, PW 4 Heera Thakur, PW 5 Siya Saran Das, PW 6 Nathun Ram, PW 7 Basant Kumar, PW 8 Yogendra Prasad, PW 9 Sita Devi, PW 10 Sunil Kumar, PW 11 Ramakant Singh and PW 12 Sahjanh Khan the I.O. 5. PW 1 is a formal witness. PWs 2, 4, 6 and 9 have been tendered. PW 7 is the seizure list witness. The court after considering all the aspects of the case came to the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302 IPC but the court found the appellants guilty under section 201 of the IPC. 6. PW 1 has proved the formal FIR (Ext.-1) PW 3 has stated that he heard that the daughter-in-law of Ram Bilash Singh died while she was cooking and he has not seen any dead body. PW 5 is a hearsay witness and has not seen any part of the occurrence. PW 7 has proved the seizure list of Sline bottle water from the house of the appellants. The seizure list has been marked as Ext.-2. PW 8 is the father of the deceased. He in his evidence has stated that the relationship of her daughter and appellant Manoj Singh was cordial. He stated that no demand was made by Manoj Singh from this witness. PW 10 is the brother of the deceased who later on came to know that his sister has died and she has been carried for cremation. PW 11 is also not the witness of occurrence. 7. If the entire evidence is analyzed then it appears that there is no witness at all who has supported any part of the occurrence. The appellants have already been acquitted under section 302 IPC. PW 11 is also not the witness of occurrence. 7. If the entire evidence is analyzed then it appears that there is no witness at all who has supported any part of the occurrence. The appellants have already been acquitted under section 302 IPC. For proving the charge under section 201 IPC it must be proved: (a) that an offence has been committed, (b) that the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such offence, (c) that with such knowledge or belief he (i) caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, or (ii) gave any information relating to that offence which he then knew or believed to be false, (d) that he did so as aforesaid with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. 8. For proving the charge there should be positive evidence that offence has been committed and the accused had reason to believe the commission of such offence. 9. Ingredients of Section 201 IPC is that the accused must have the knowledge about the commission of substantive offence. In the present case the offence is under section 302 Indian Penal Code. The accused must have intention that by this particular act he is trying to screen the real offender. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the accused is charged with offence of vanishing the evidence but the evidences discloses for offence under section 201 IPC then the accused cannot be convicted without any new charge been framed. Reliance has been placed on a judgment reported in 2007(3) SCC (CR) 226. 11. Learned APP has also submitted that this is a case of no evidence. 12. After noticing the evidences available on the record it appears that the appellant has already been acquitted for the charge under section 302 IPC. There is no evidence that the accused knew or had reason to believe about the commission of offence of murder that as to whether any such offence have been committed or not. In absence of knowledge or believe no person can be convicted for the offence committed under section 201 IPC. 13. In the result I am of the view that this is a case of no evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove its charge against the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and this appeal is allowed. 13. In the result I am of the view that this is a case of no evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove its charge against the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.