JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment dated 11.1.2011 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.7/2010, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and further directed to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that between 23.9.2009 to 24.9.2009, all three accused namely present appellant, co-accused Banwari and Panchuram (now acquitted) crushed the head of deceased Umend Ram with the help of stone and thereby murdered him and in order to screen themselves, they have thrown the dead body of deceased Umend Ram beneath the bridge in floating stream and thereby committed the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur by its impugned judgment convicted appellant-Banwari @ Banwasi Patel for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and his appeal being Criminal Appeal No.423/2012 has been disposed off today by separate order as having been abated. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur by its impugned judgment convicted appellant-Banwari @ Banwasi Patel for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and his appeal being Criminal Appeal No.423/2012 has been disposed off today by separate order as having been abated. However, the present appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 201 of the IPC by recording a finding in paras 39 and 42 as under: ^^39- Á-ih-17 vkjksih cuokjh ds eseksjs.Me dFku ds vuqlkj e`rd vesan jke dh e`R;q vkjksih cuokjh ds }kjk gh /kqek ds xks[kus ukyk iqfy;k ds ikl iRFkj ls e`rd ds flj dks ekjdj rFkk iRFkj ls flj dks dqpydj gR;k fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlds i'pkr~ vkjksih iapwiky rFkk uudh iVsy dks ?kVuk dh tkudkjh nsdj muds lkFk e`rd dh yk'k dks iqfy;k ds uhps ukyk esa Qsadk x;k gS A vkjksih iapwiky vkSj uudh iVsy ds eseksjs.Me dFku Á-ih-18 ,oa ih-19 ls Hkh vkjksih cuokjh }kjk e`rd mesanjke dh gR;k dj fn;s tkus dh tkudkjh fn;s tkus ij ?kVuk LFky ij vkdj vkjksih cuokjh ds lkFk feydj e`rd ds 'ko dks iqfy;k ds uhps Qsadus es enn fd;k x;k gSA 42- vkjksih uudh iVsy ds fo#)] e`rd mesan jke dh] vkjksih cuokjh ds lkFk feydj lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj.k esa e`rd mesan jke dh gR;k djus dk rF; Áekf.kr ugha ik;k x;k ysfdu vkjksih cuokjh ds lkFk feydj] e`rd mesan jke dk 'ko] ukyk fdukjs Qsad dj lk{; dk foyksi djus dk vijk/k vkjksih uudh iVsy ds fo#) Áekf.kr ikrs gq,] vkjksih uudh iVsy dks /kkjk 302@34 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/k ls nks"keqDr djrs gq,] /kkjk 201@34 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/k ds fy, mls fl)nks"k Bgjk;k tkrk gSA** 3. Mr.Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that taking the finding recorded by the trial Court in paras 39 and 42 of the impugned judgment as it is, the only allegation against the present appellant is that he has assisted co-accused Banwari @ Banwasi in throwing the dead body of Umend Ram beneath the bridge in steam. Mr.Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that taking the finding recorded by the trial Court in paras 39 and 42 of the impugned judgment as it is, the only allegation against the present appellant is that he has assisted co-accused Banwari @ Banwasi in throwing the dead body of Umend Ram beneath the bridge in steam. He would further submit that no finding has been recorded by the trial Court that the appellant charged with the offence under Section 201 of the IPC had the knowledge or reason to believe that offence under Section 302 of the IPC has been committed and the act has been done with intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he had given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false and merely on the basis that corpse of deceased Umend Ram has been thrown beneath the bridge in floating stream, he has been convicted. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Arijit Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, would submit that ingredients of Section 201 of the IPC have been satisfied and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. The appellant has been convicted as noticed hereinabove under Section 201 of the IPC. Section 201 of the IPC states as under : “201. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. The appellant has been convicted as noticed hereinabove under Section 201 of the IPC. Section 201 of the IPC states 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, 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 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.” 7. The aforesaid provision relates to disappearance of any evidence of the commission of an offence and includes also the giving of false information with the intention of screening an offender. Sections 202 and 203 of the IPC relate to the giving or omitting to give such information and Section 204 of the IPC to the destruction of documentary evidence. The first paragraph lays down the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. It must be proved firstly that an offence has been committed. Secondly, the accused must know or have reason to believe that the offence has been committed. The first paragraph lays down the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. It must be proved firstly that an offence has been committed. Secondly, the accused must know or have reason to believe that the offence has been committed. Thirdly, the accused must either cause any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear or give any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false. Fourthly, the accused must have acted with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502 has considered prerequisites for conviction for offence under Section 201 of the IPC and held that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused and there must be on record cogent evidence to prove that intention and a mere suspicion is not sufficient to bring home the said offence. It was observed as under : “18. The first paragraph of the Section contains the postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining three paragraphs prescribe three different tiers of punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each situation. To bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, the ingredients to be established are: (i) committal of an offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with the said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence and (iv) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he should have given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false. It is plain that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly needs any emphasis that in order to bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown. 19. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown. 19. In Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354 this Court had said that in order to establish the charge under Section 201 IPC, 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; with requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, caused the evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false. It was observed that the court should safeguard itself against the danger of basing its conclusion on suspicions, however, strong they may be. (Also see Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 , Nathu v. State of U.P., (1979) 3 SCC 574 , V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala (2001) 3 SCC 549 .)” 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sukhram (supra), it is quite vivid that in the instant case, merely on the basis of statement of Sitaram (PW2) that he has last seen co-accused Banwari, present appellant and deceased Umend Ram all together on the fateful day, the trial Court has convicted the present appellant for offence under Section 201 of the IPC. 10. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the trial Court has not recorded any finding that the appellant was aware about the commission of offence i.e. murder by co-accused Banwari under Section 302 of the IPC and furthermore it has also not been held that the appellant had the knowledge or reason to believe that offence has been committed and it has also not been recorded that the appellant has assisted co-accused Banwari in throwing the dead body beneath the bridge in floating stream with intention of screening the offender co-accused Banwari from legal punishment. Even otherwise, there is no cogent evidence on record to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown. The only fact against the present appellant which has been found proved by the trial Court is that he has assisted co-accused Banwari in removing the corpse of a murdered man. To constitute an offence under Section 201 of the IPC, there must be disappearance of some evidence of the commission of an offence with intent to screen the offender. 11. In Nagendra Nath Bhakta v. Emperor, AIR 1934 Cal 144, it has been held by the Calcutta High Court that removing the corpse of a murdered man from the scene of murder to another place does not come under Section 201 as the removal does not cause the disappearance of some evidence of the commission of the murder. 12. Taking the finding of the trial Court as it is in light of principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sukhram (supra), none of other ingredients of said offence (Section 201 IPC) are satisfied for convicting the appellant for offence under Section 201 of the IPC. 13. Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 201 of the IPC are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 201 of the IPC. He is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender. However, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437A of the CrPC. 14. The criminal Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.