Sukhwinder Singh @ Bittu vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 17032 P&H

CRA-D-1051-DB-2009                                          -1-



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH.

                                           CRA-D-1051-DB-2009
                                           Reserved on: 13.12.2022
                                           Pronounced on: 16.12.2022



Sukhwinder Singh @ Bittu                                          .....Appellant

                                  Versus

State of Punjab                                             .....Respondent


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Argued by: Ms. Nidhi Garg, Advocate
           for the appellant.

            Ms. Monika Jalota, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                                           ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed by the convict, against the

verdict of conviction, made on 06.08.2008, by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, upon Sessions Case No. 11 of 2007,

wherethrough, in respect of charges drawn for offences punishable

under Sections 302, 376-2(f) IPC, and, under Section 201 of the IPC, he

made a finding of conviction against the accused.

2. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order drawn on

06.08.2008, the learned trial Judge proceeded to impose upon the

convict (supra) both sentence(s) of imprisonment as well as of fine, but

in the hereinafter extracted manner :-

Under Section Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine 376-2 (f) IPC of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one year.

Under Section Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine

1 of 20

201 Part I IPC of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months.

Under Section Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10000/-. 302 IPC In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I.

for two years.

3. All the sentence(s) were ordered to run concurrently, but

the period spent in custody by the convict during the pendency of

investigation and trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C.,

ordered to be set off against the above imposed substantive sentence(s)

of imprisonment.

4. The convict becomes aggrieved from the verdict of

conviction (supra), besides become aggrieved from the above imposed

sentence(s), thus, is led to cast thereagainst the instant appeal before

this Court.

Factual background

5. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes encapsulated

in the appeal FIR to which Exhibit PK/2 is assigned. The present FIR

was lodged at the instance of the father of the deceased child Simarjit

Kaur. The informant Gurbachan Singh, has made narrations thereins

that he is a resident of Jhabal and is a labourer having three daughters

and one son. He was getting his house repaired by engaging a mason.

The previous day, on 9.11.2005 at about 6 pm his eldest daughter

Simaranjit Kaur aged 8 years told her mother that she was going to

answer the call of nature and left the house. When she did not turn up

for 20 minutes he along with his wife started searching their daughter

but they could not. Then the complainant along with co- villagers gave

information to the Police station. On that day also since morning they

were searching for the missing girl along with other persons of

2 of 20

neighbourhood and brotherhood. At about 3 p.m the dead body of

Simaranjit Kaur was found in the water of village pond. Her Salwar was

lying on the bank of the pond. The complainant believed that some

unkonwn person or persons after kidnapping, raped his daughter and

thereafter killed her and threw her dead body in the water of the pond,

so as to conceal the same and prayed for taking legal action. On the

basis of his statement FIR was registered and special reports were sent

to the officers concerned.

Investigation proceedings

6. The investigation was put into motion. Post mortem on the

dead body of Simaranjit Kaur was got conducted. The cause of death in

this case was asphyxia owing to smothering of the victim leading to

cardiorespiratory arrest. From the spot moulds of the foot print(s), were

taken into possession, and, the same were sent to the Forensic Science

Laboratory, Chandigarh. The Rough site plan of the place of occurrence

was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded.

7. After completion of investigations by the investigating

officer concerned, into the FIR (supra), he instituted an affirmative

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the learned Committal Judge

concerned.

Committal proceedings

8. Finding the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201

and 376 IPC, to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session, thus the

learned committal Court vide order dated 01.03.2006, committed the

case for trial to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn

Taran.

3 of 20

Trial Court Proceedings

9. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections

302/376/201 of the IPC became framed, against the accused, to which

he pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial.

10. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution

examined thirteen witnesses. After completion of recording of the

depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge concerned, drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused claimed false implication, and,

pleaded innocence. In his defence, the accused examined four witnesses

Ratan Kumar as DW-1, Raghbir Singh as DW-2, Dr. Amarjit Singh,

Medical Officer, Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran as DW-3 and

Jarnail Singh as DW-4.

11. After conclusion of the trial, as, became entered upon the

FIR (supra), by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, the

latter proceeded to make the afore verdict of conviction, and, also made

the consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), upon, the present

appellant.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the convict-appellant.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the convict-appellant

has submitted with much force before this Court, that the impugned

judgment suffers from a gross vice of gross mis-appreciation, and, non

appreciation of evidence germane to the charge. Therefore, she prays

that the instant appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted of the

charges as became framed against him.

Submissions of the learned State Counsel

4 of 20

13. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued

that the appreciation of evidence as made by the learned Convicting

Court, is merit-worthy, and, that it does not require any interference

being made by this Court.

Circumstantial based evidence case.

Deposition of the informant, the father of the deceased child Simarjit Kaur, who stepped into the witness box as PW-5.

14. PW-5, Gurbachan Singh, on his stepping into the witness

box, has completely supported the genesis of the prosecution version,

as set forth in his previously recorded statement, to which Exhibit PK is

assigned. Exhibit PK resulted in the registration of an FIR in respect of

the apposite penal occurrence, whereto, Exhibit PK/2 has been

assigned. Though, PW-5 in his statement, as embodied in his

examination-in-chief, does not make speakings about his being an eye

witness to the relevant crime event. However, he has in his

examination-in-chief testified that, on 10.11.2005, the day subsequent

to his making a futile search to locate his deceased daughter Simarjit

Kaur, hence his alongwith the co-villagers discovering the body of the

deceased child in the village pond. He also deposes that her salwar was

lying outside the pond. The chuni of the deceased child, which became

allegedly used by the accused to smother the deceased child, leading to

her demise hence occurring through asphyxia, was produced in Court.

The said chuni was stated by PW-5, to be recovered, at the instance of

the accused to the investigating officer concerned. Moreover, the said

chuni, as became taken into police possession through recovery memo

Exhibit PL, also became produced in Court, and was shown to PW-5,

resulting in his further testifying, that it was the very same chuni,

5 of 20

which became recovered by the convict to the investigating officer

concerned. Nonetheless, in his cross examination, though he has voiced

about his deceased child wearing a salwar and kameez of yellow colour,

and, that the dupatta which she was wearing at the relevant time was

also of the same colour, but on his becoming confronted with his

previous statement recorded in writing, there was no speaking therein

that the colour of the chuni, as became taken into police possession

through recovery memo Exhibit PL, rather was also yellow. However,

yet the above minimal digression or improvement, as made by PW-5, in

his examination-in-chief, from his previous statement recorded in

writing before the police, does not for the reasons assigned hereinafter,

detract from the efficacy of the other hereinafter alluded potent

incriminatory pieces of evidence, as became adduced, by the

prosecution, to prove the charge drawn against the convict.

Theory of last seeing of the accused and the deceased together, as spoken by PW-11.

15. PW-11 is the mother of the deceased child. In her

examination-in-chief, she has spoken that the repairs to their house

were effected on 09.11.2005. At about 4 P.M., on 09.11.2005, she

speaks that she had gone outside to answer the call of nature. She

continues to testify that the convict whom she identified in the Court,

had come to her house, and had asked whether the masons had stopped

the work, and to which she replied that they had stopped the work on

the said day. Moreover, she testifies that when she was standing at the

door of the house, that she then witnessed that the accused went

towards the same side to which side her daughter had proceeded to,

and, that thereafter both did not return. The searchings made for

6 of 20

discovering the deceased child are testified by her to be completely

futile.

16. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the

theory of the last seeing of the deceased and the accused together, as

becomes spoken by PW-11, is a completely frail incriminatory link, in

the chain of incriminatory circumstances, as becomes errected by the

prosecution.

17. The said spoken fact by PW-11 in her examination-in-chief

is unveiled in her cross examination, to be not occurring, in her

previously made statement in writing to the police officer concerned.

Therefore, as but a natural corollary, the said spoken fact in her

examination-in-chief, is a dire improvement or embellishment vis-a-vis

hers previous statement made before the police officer. Therefore, the

said theory of last seeing of the accused and the deceased together,

rather in proximity to the time of discovery of the body of the deceased

child, hence becoming effected from the relevant site, does not carry

any evidentiary credit worthiness, nor on its anvil, the prosecution can

succeed in establishing the guilt of the convict.

Signatured disclosure statements of the convict respectively carried in Exhibit PM and Exhibit PN.

18. Be that as it may, during the course of investigations being

made into the crime event, by the investigating officer concerned, the

convict made a duo of signatured disclosure statements. The apposite

disclosure statements are respectively embodied in Exhibit PM, and, in

Exhibit PN. The contents of Exhibit PM are ad-verbatim extracted

hereinafter.

7 of 20

"In the presence of following witnesses, accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Bittu above noted on my through interrogation confessed that the chunni with which I had shut the mouth of Simarjit Kaur, I have kept concealed in the pond under the booti (weeding) and I can get the same recovered on pointing out the same as I know about it only. Memo of confession prepared accordingly.

Sd/-

Sukhwinder Singh Witnesses:-

Sd/-"

19. In pursuance to the drawing of the signatured disclosure

statement, as becomes embodied in Exhibit PM, the accused ensured

the recovery of chuni of yellow colour from the location of its hiding

and keeping, to the investigating officer concerned.

Conclusions from the above signatured disclosure statement embodied in Exhibit PM and consequent therewith recovery of chuni through memo Exhibit PL.

20. A reading of the contents of Exhibit PM, discloses that

thereins the convict had not only confessed his guilt, in using the chuni

to smother the mouth of the deceased child Simarjit Kaur, but had also

evinced his readiness and willingness to ensure its' recovery to the

investigating officer concerned, from the location of its hiding and

keeping, as the said location was known only to him.

21. Moreover, since in pursuance to the drawing of Exhibit

PM, the convict also caused the recovery of the incriminatory chuni to

the investigating officer concerned, and, when the same was taken into

police possession through recovery memo Ex. PL. Furthermore, when

the above drawn disclosure statement, when evidently became

signatured by the convict, and when the convict-accused neither ably

denied his signatures, as carried thereons, nor ably proved the apposite

denial. Further, when the apposite disclosure statement also led to the

8 of 20

makings of recovery of the incriminatory chuni at the instance of the

convict, to the investigating officer concerned. Therefore, the

cumulative effect of the above, is that, utmost evidentiary solemnity is

to be assigned to the disclosure statement (supra). Moreover, the said

disclosure statement also does not become a simpliciter or bald

confession of guilt, as subsequent thereto, the accused did cause, the

valid recovery of the incriminatory chuni, to the investigating officer

concerned, and the same was validly taken into police possession

through recovery memo Exhibit PL. Moreover, since the recovery of

the incriminatory chuni which became confessed by him to become

used by him to smother the deceased child, has not been proven to be

either an engineered or a concocted or even a invented recovery at the

instance of the investigating officer concerned. Therefore, evidentiary

vigor is also to be assigned to the recovery of the incriminatory chuni,

as became caused through recovery memo Ex.PL., but subsequent to

the making of an apposite valid signatured disclosure statement carried

in Ex.PM.

Disclosure Statement Exhibit PN.

22. Moreover, in pursuance to the drawing of the signatured

disclosure statement, as becomes embodied in Exhibit PN, the accused

also ensured the recovery of his jutti, which he had worn at the relevant

time, hence from the location of its hiding and keeping, to the

investigating officer concerned. The contents of Exhibit PN are ad-

verbatim extracted hereinafter.

"In the presence of following witnesses, accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Bittu above noted on my through interrogation confessed that I have kept concealed the jutti (open shoes) which I had worn at the time of occurrence

9 of 20

under the earth/soil where the plants are being planted in the vacant place of the road near Dera Radha Swami about which I know only and can get the same recovered on pointing out the same. On this memo of confession was prepared accordingly.

Sd/-

Sukhwinder Singh Witnesses:-

Sd/-"

23. Subsequent to the recovery of the footwear of the accused

which he was wearing at the relevant time, and, as became effected

through recovery memo Exhibit PO, the investigating officer

concerned, also collected from the crime site, through a memo

embodied in Exhibit PU, the right foot mould jutti mark, and, thereafter

he sent both in cloth parcels through constable Rajbir Singh, No. 4526,

to the FSL concerned. The contents of the said cloth parcels,

respectively carrying thereins, the right footwear mould, as become

collected from the crime site, by the investigating officer concerned,

through recovery memo (supra), and the footwear of the convict-

accused, became subjected to inter-se comparisons hence by the expert

concerned. The result, of the inter-se comparisons or of the inter-se

matchings inter-se the right footwear mould as became lifted from the

crime site, by the investigating officer concerned, rather with the

chappals of the accused, as became recovered through recovery memo

Exhibit PO, becomes extracted hereinafter.

"Result of Examination

The impression of right footwear on crime mould 'C' is from the right fellow AR of pair of test footwear of the suspect, contained in parcel 'A' as referred above."

10 of 20

Conclusions from the results of the examinations made upon the above.

24. A reading of the above extracted result of the above

comparisons, as made at the FSL concerned, though does comprise, the

best scientific evidence, and also though does vividly pronounce the

presence of the convict, at the relevant time, at the crime site.

25. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, no

evidentiary vigor is garnered by Exhibit PZ/3. The reason(s) for the

making of the said inference, becomes comprised in the factum, that in

the relevant hereinafter extracted portion of Exhibit PZ/3, there is a

narration, that one unmarked sealed parcel though became received at

the FSL concerned. Moreover, though the expert concerned, after

affirmatively tallying the sealed impressions carried thereons hence

with the specimen sealed impressions, rather took to open the parcel

concerned, and, whereafter he made the apposite affirmative inter-se

matchings. Subsequently, on the said sealed unmarked cloth parcels, the

expert concerned, made thereons the seals of the FSL concerned.

However, Ex. PZ/3 also speaks about one footwear mould, as became

collected from the crime site, through memo Exhibit PU, becoming also

received at the FSL concerned, but in an unsealed and unmarked

condition. If so, the collection of the right footwear mould(s), from the

crime site, by the investigating officer, through memo (supra), rather

cannot be said to be sent to the FSL concerned, in the required

untampered and unspoiled condition. Thus, the affirmative inter-se

tallyings' therewith, with the footwear of the convict, as became

recovered through Ex.PO, does not yet clinch, the necessary factum

qua the accused rather being at the relevant time hence available at the

11 of 20

crime site nor the above extracted result of the apposite inter-se

affirmative examinations, foster any inference, that therethrough the

charge against the accused becoming unflinchingly proven.

" Date of receipt :

             i) In office         : 5.12.2005
             ii) In division      : 5.12.2005
            Mode of receipt       : through const. Rajbir Singh No. 4526

Articles received : 1) One parcel unmarked was received sealed. The seal impression tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded.

2) One mould is received unsealed and unmarked......."

26. In addition the report of the scientific officer concerned, is

not perse admissible in evidence as he is not one amongst the

experts/specialists, who are mentioned in Section 293 of the Cr.P.C.,

provisions whereof become extracted nor he has been disclosed in the

apposite notification, to become declared as an expert for the relevant

purpose. In consequence, it does not hold the requisite evidentiary

vigor, which rather it may hold in case the author of Exhibit PZ/3, after

stepping into the witness box, had proven Exhibit PZ/3.

293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts.

(1)Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. (2)The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject- matter of his report. (3)Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if

12 of 20

such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.

(4)This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:-

(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;

(b) the Chief Inspector of- Explosives;

(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;

(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;

(e) the Director1, Deputy Director or Assistant Director] of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;

(f) the Serologist to the Government.

For the reasons assigned hereinafter, even if this Court does not assign any evidentiary vigor to Exhibit PZ/3, yet this court would proceed to yet draw verdict of conviction against the convict.

27. The confession of guilt, as made by the convict in his

signatured disclosure statement embodied in Exhibit PM, when for

reason (supra), did result in the causing of recovery of the incriminatory

chuni, rather through Ex. PL, to the investigating officer concerned.

Therefore, when for above stated reasons, the said confession of guilt

has been assigned credence, as it is not a simpliciter or bald confession

of guilt, nor attracts thereons the ousting mandate of Section 25 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, given the consequent therewith recovery

through Ex.PL, of the incriminatory chuni, rather also becoming caused

to the investigating officer concerned. Resultantly irrespective of, for

the reasons (supra), qua any infirmly made inter-se matchings,

occurring inter-se the footwear of the accused, as became recovered

through Ex.PO, with the moulds of the right foot of the convict, which

purportedly existed at the crime site, yet does not at all override nor

benumbs the confession of guilt, as made by the convict, in his

uncontested signatured disclosure statement, to which Exhibit PM is

assigned.

13 of 20

28. Importantly when reiteratedly the convict has neither

contested his signatures as carried thereins nor has proven the said

contest through his adducing the best evidence.

29. Reiteratedly also when an efficacious recovery of

incriminatory chuni also became caused at his instance to the

investigating officer concerned, through memo Exhibit PM and besides

when its possession was taken through recovery memo Ex.PL.

Therefore, the above validly drawn memos, do completely negate and

override, the effect if any of any purported inefficacious collections of

the right foot moulds, as became purportedly made from the crime site.

Post mortem report.

30. The post mortem report, to which Ex. PA/1 is assigned. Ex.

PA/1, has been proven by its author, who stepped into the witness box

as PW-1. In his testification, he has made echoings that on his making

an autopsy on the body of the deceased child, his observing thereons,

the hereinafter extracted injuries.

"1. A lacerated wound 1 x 0.5 cm. In size present on the middle of left upper lid.

2. A lacerated wound 0.5 x0.5 cms. in size present on the left side of face, just below the margin of left lower eye lid.

3. A lacerated wound 1 cm. X 0.5 cm. Present on the musosa of angle of mouth on right side.

4. A lacerated wound 1 cm. X 0.5 cm in size on the musosal of surface of angle of outh on left side.

5. A lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm in size on the front surface of right thigh in its lower part 2 cms above the right knee joint."

31. Moreover, he voices that on receipt of the chemical

examiner report Ex.PB, and on the basis of report of the Gynocolgist,

14 of 20

he made an opinion, that the cause of the demise of the deceased child

was axphyxia arising from smothering which ultimately led to fatal

cardiorespiratory arrest, and, also spoke that the said smothering was

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The above

made opinion about the cause of demise of the deceased child, does

connect, the convict not only with the validly drawn disclosure

statement Exhibit PM, but also connects him with the consequent

therewith recovery of chuni as became caused through Ex. PM.

Therefore, too when the causal connection inter-se the cause of death of

the deceased with the incriminatory user of chuni at the instance of the

accused, does become convincingly established. Resultantly the

prosecution has unflinchingly proven the charge drawn against the

convict.

Evidence and proof of offence under Section 376-2(f) IPC.

32. PW-4, made a gynaecological examination on the body of

the deceased. She has upon stepping into the witness box as PW-4, has

spoken that the result of the said examination sequeled the hereinafter

extracted opinion.

"On the basis of local examination again said on examination secondary sexual characters were found not well developed and axillary hairs were absent.

Local Examination:

'Pubic hairs absent, vaginal mecosa inflamed, hymen was absent. Two vagina swabs were taken first from lower vagina admitted little finger. Service and uterus infertile."

33. The conclusions which are to be drawn from the above

extracted results of the gynaecological examination, as made by PW-4

upon the body of the deceased child, are that, the noticeable thereins

symptoms qua inflamation being caused to the vaginal mecosa, besides

15 of 20

qua the hymen being absent, and, when it is also echoed therein, that

the lower vagina admitted the little finger, they rather lead to a natural

inference, that the deceased child was subjected to forcible sexual

intercourse. Moreover, since through recovery memo Exhibit PP, the

broken bangles of the deceased child were also recovered, at the

instance of the convict. Therefore, when the said preparation of the

above memo, has not been disputed, by the convict through his making

an efficacious cross examination, upon, the investigating officer

concerned. Thus, credence has to be assigned to the collections as made

at his instance of the broken glass bangles of the deceased child from

the apposite location. As but a natural corollary, the above drawn

inference also begets the resultant consequence, that it was only during

the course of convict subjecting the deceased child to forcible sexual

intercourse, that the glass bangles which she was wearing at the

relevant time rather did get broken. Therefore, even the charge drawn

against the convict for an offence punishable under Section 376-2 (f)

IPC too become unflinchingly proven.

34. PW-4, though during the course of her examination-in-

chief has spoken, qua upon his making a gynaecological examination

upon the deceased child, hers preparing the apposite vaginal swabs,

and, had inserting the same in sealed cloth parcels, and, whereafter they

were sent to the chemical examiner concerned. However, the latter after

making an examination of the vaginal swab cloth parcels, which

became received by him in an untampered, and, unspoiled condition,

has not made any voicing therein, that any spermatozoa was detected in

the contents of the vaginal swabs, as became enclosed in sealed cloth

16 of 20

parcels, as became sent, and, also became received in an untampered

and unspoiled sealed cloth parcels, at the laboratory concerned. The

report of the Chemical Examiner has been assigned Exhibit PG.

Argument of the learned counsel for the convict on the above.

35. On the above echoing occurring in Exhibit PG, the learned

counsel for the convict-accused has made a submission, that it results in

an inference that the charge drawn against the accused convict under

Section 376-2 (f) IPC rather does falter.

36. Moreover, she also makes a submission that the above

extracted resulted of the examinations, as made by PW-4, on the body

of the deceased, does becomes completely frail.

Reasons for rejecting the above submission.

37. However, for the reasons assigned hereinafter, the above

made submission is outrightly rejected. The echoing in Exhibit PG qua

no spermatozoa being detected in the vaginal swabs of the deceased

child, can never benumb the above extracted results, of the

gynaecological examination, as made upon the deceased child by PW-4,

as therein it becomes uncontestedly voiced, given no cross examination

in respect thereof becoming conducted upon PW-4, qua their occuring

symptoms of inflamation of the vaginal mecosa, and, qua the hymen

being absent, besides qua the lower vagina admitting the little finger. If

so, naturally the above symptoms would occur only when the deceased

was put to coitus by the convict.

17 of 20

Validity of conviction recorded under Section 201 IPC.

38. For determining the validity of the above made conviction,

it is necessary to extract the provisions carried in Section 201 IPC.

Provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter.

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, 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. Illustration A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine."

39. A deep reading of the above provisions, underscores the

factum, that the trite rubric for attracting the mandate thereof, become

comprised, in evidence emerging qua the inculpated person, provenly

"knowing of having reasons to believe that an offence has been

committed." Therefore, the signification to be assigned to the coinage

18 of 20

"Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has

been committed" is but naturally, that the person to be tried for an

offence under Section 201 IPC, and, also to be convicted for the said

offence, is required to be not the principal offender who commits the

offence, but is required to be a person who knows or has reasons to

believe that an offence has been committed. Since the accused was the

principal offender, or was the principal in first degree besides was the

person who committed the offence. Therefore, there was no occasion to

implicate him, on the premise, that he yet knew or he had reason to

believe, that an offence has been committed, and, that his taking to

screen the apposite incriminatory evidence in the manners enshrined in

provisions (supra).

Final Order

40. In consequence, the appeal is partly allowed and the

impugned verdict, and, consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), as

imposed upon the convict, is modified, to the extent that the impugned

verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence(s), imposed

upon the convict, qua an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, is

set aside.

41. However, there is no merit qua the challenge cast to the

impugned verdict, and consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), as

imposed upon the convict, qua offences punishable under Section 302

IPC and under Section 376-2(f) IPC. Therefore, the impugned verdict

and consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), qua offences (supra), is

maintained and affirmed.

19 of 20

42. The case property, if any, be dealt with in accordance with

law after the expiry of period of limitation for the filing of an appeal.

The records be sent down forthwith.

                                              (SURESHWAR THAKUR)
                                                     JUDGE




                                                (KULDEEP TIWARI)
16.12.2022                                           JUDGE
kavneet singh

                 Whether speaking/reasoned       :      Yes/No
                 Whether reportable              :      Yes/No




                                   20 of 20