JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be accepted and the accused appellants be acquitted under Section I.P.C." 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1975 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 1989. 3. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 25.09.1989, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, in Sessions Case No. 11/88 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and awarded a sentence of 5 years R.I. along with a fine of RS. 200/-, in default of payment of which he was to further undergo 1 month S.I. Section 201 I.P.C. is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of brevity:- 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, 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 1[imprisonment for life], or 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 which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both." 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No. 1 Ridmal Khan has passed away during the pendency of the appeal, and that only appellant No. 2 Mehran Khan survives. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No. 1 Ridmal Khan has passed away during the pendency of the appeal, and that only appellant No. 2 Mehran Khan survives. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the sentence so awarded to Mehran Khan, appellant No. 2 was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 28.09.1989 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 375/1989. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant has undergone about 5 months in custody out of the total sentence so awarded to him by the learned Courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the "Bori" which was recovered at the instance of the deceased Ridmal, who had apparently buried it about 1/1.5 kms. from his house, was not identified by P.W. 9 nor by P.W. 10. Furthermore, that there were only a few blood stains on the the said sack/'bori' make the prosecution story, that it contained a severed head of Karna, unbelievable. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the recovery of the said gunny bag/sack/'Bori' was in fact stage-managed, and that the fact that the motbir witnesses were relatives of the deceased victim, and therefore their testimonies as recovery witness should not be believed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the main accused in the present case, being one Hasan and Mubarak, are absconding till date. And that, as per the version of the prosecution, the said persons committed the murder, and carried the severed head of the deceased victim to the house of the now deceased Ridmal, which is proven by the blood stained soil recovered from outside Ridmal's house, who in turn attempted to assist them to cover up the crime, and flee from India to Pakistan. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Court below has erred in passing the impugned order of conviction despite the fact that S.P. Kanhaiyalal never appeared before the learned Court below even though repeated summons, Tehsildar Madan Parek as not examined although the test identification parade was carried out in front of him, the weapon in question was not sent for F.S.L. neither is there any independent witness or eye witness with regard to the incident in question, and that the entire case of the prosecution rests solely on the confessional statements made by the accused themselves. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in order for the prosecution to have successfully proven a case under Section 201 I.P.C. it should have been proven that an offence was committed, that the accused knew or had reason to know the commission of such an offence, that the accused with such knowledge or belief caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear or gave any information relating to that offence which he then knew or believed to be false, and that he did so as aforesaid with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant thus submits that while the learned Court below rightly acquitted the appellants for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 120B I.P.C. it wrongly convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments of Raj Kumar v. State 2005 Cr.L.J. 25 1322 (J & K), Ganga Singh v. State of U.P. 1998 CrLJ 3362 , Bholanath v. State of Delhi 1986 CrLJ 1409 (Delhi H.C.), Kartarey & Ors. v. State of U.P. 1976 CrLJ 13 (SC), Babboo v. State of M.P. AIR 1979 SC 1042 , D.P. Misal v. State of Maharashtra 1987 CrLJ 1512 (Bom.) and Prabhoo v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 113. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 15. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order. 16. This Court observes that the learned Court below, in convicting the appellant herein for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. made the following observations:- 5.1. Mehran and Ridmal were Iliyas' relatives, Mehran was his brother in law while Redmal was his paternal cousin. 15.2. The blood stained gunny bag/'bori' was found at the instance of accused Ridmal, and blood stained soil was found outside his house as well, which shows the involvement of Ridmal in the incident in question, beyond reasonable doubt. 15.3. Mehran and Ridmal were Iliyas' relatives, Mehran was his brother in law while Redmal was his paternal cousin. 15.2. The blood stained gunny bag/'bori' was found at the instance of accused Ridmal, and blood stained soil was found outside his house as well, which shows the involvement of Ridmal in the incident in question, beyond reasonable doubt. 15.3. The main accused, therefore, went to Ridmal's house right after the commission of the crime in question, and the fact that the gunny bag/'bori' was recovered at the instance of Ridmal points to the clear fact that he was involved in the disappearance of evidence. 15.4. Similarly, the axe/tabal being the weapon used in the commission of the crime against deceased Karnaram, was recovered at the instance of appellant No. 2 Mehran. And that, testimonies of witnesses corroborate the version of the prosecution that the said weapon was used to slit the throat of the deceased Karnaram. 15.5. Furthermore, the entire incident in question, after a perusal of the evidence on record, appears to be a conspiracy and the main accused have fled to Pakistan, with the assistance of the appellants herein, after the commission of a gruesome murder. 17. This Court, after a thorough perusal of the record finds that the learned Court below has rightly convicted the appellants herein for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. Appellant No. 1 Ridmal Khan has passed away, and the appeal stands abated against him. 18. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction is upheld. The appellant No. 2 Mehran Khan is on bail, in pursuance of the order dated 28.09.1989 passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 375/1989. His bail bonds and sureties are forfeited; he is directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of the sentence. All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.