ORDER : 1. The appeal has arisen out of judgment dated 4th August, 1993 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Neem-ka-thana in sessions case No.14/1991, whereby while acquitting the appellants from the charges u/s 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC, convicted them under Section 201 IPC. By the same judgment, for offence u/s 201 IPC, appellant No.2 Mst. Mishri and appellant No.3 Phooli were granted benefit of probation, whereas appellant No.1 Sharwan kumar was ordered to undergo one years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-: in default whereof, further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 2. Very short question has been raised in the instant appeal whether in absence of conviction of the accused for other offences charged with, the accused can be convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for appellants has taken me through Section 201 IPC and submitted that without conviction of the appellants under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 IPC, they cannot be convicted under Section 201 IPC. In support, he referred Suleman Rahiman Mulani and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 892 and Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya and Ors. vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2015 SC 2670 . 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the instant matter appellants have been given benefit of doubt and it cannot be said that offence was not committed. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the whole record thoroughly. 6. Facts of the case in nutshell are that appellants were charged that Sushila, Bhabhi of Mishri and Sharwan Kumar and daughter-in-law of Phooli, was married with Babulal on 5.2.1984, and since then she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and she died of an unnatural death by felling in a way within 7 years of matrimonial alliance. The appellants disposed of the dead body prior to reaching of her parental sides. The appellants were tried by the trial court for offences punishable under Section 498 A, 304 B, 306 and 201 IPC. After due trial, the appellants were acquitted, extending benefit of doubt, from charges of 498 A, 304 B and 306 IPC. However, they were convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The appellants were tried by the trial court for offences punishable under Section 498 A, 304 B, 306 and 201 IPC. After due trial, the appellants were acquitted, extending benefit of doubt, from charges of 498 A, 304 B and 306 IPC. However, they were convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Section 201 IPC 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, of with the intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence.--shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.--and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], with imprisonment which may extend to ten years shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment.-- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-forth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.” 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Suleman Rahiman Mulani's case (supra) in para 6 as follows. “The conviction of the appellant No.2 under S. 201 IPC depends on the sustainability of the conviction of appellant No.1 under S. 304-A IPC. If appellant No.1 was rightly convicted under that provision, the conviction of appellant No.2 under S. 201 IPC on the facts found cannot be challenged. “The conviction of the appellant No.2 under S. 201 IPC depends on the sustainability of the conviction of appellant No.1 under S. 304-A IPC. If appellant No.1 was rightly convicted under that provision, the conviction of appellant No.2 under S. 201 IPC on the facts found cannot be challenged. But on the other hand, if the conviction of appellant No. 1 under S. 304-A IPC cannot be sustained, then, the second appellant's conviction under S. 201 IPC will have to be set aside, because to establish the charge under S. 201, the prosecution must first prove that an offence had been committed not merely a suspicion that it might have been committed – and that the accused knowing or having reason to believe that such an offence had been committed, and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, had caused the evidence thereof to disappear. The proof of the commission of the offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the offence under S. 201 IPC.” 8. The Apex Court has reiterated in Ghusabhai's case (supra) that once it is held that the accused appellants are not guilty of offence under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, conviction under Section 201 IPC is also not sustainable. 9. In the instant matter, facts are similar. Here also appellants have been acquitted of the charges u/s 304-B, 498-A and 306 IPC. Therefore, they cannot be convicted for charge of disappearance of evidence of offence i.e. under Section 201 IPC. 10. Thus, appeal succeeds. Judgment dated 4.8.1993 with regard to the conviction and sentence for offence u/s 201 IPC, passed by learned trial court, is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.