Mehran Khan vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 9852 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 367/1989

Mehran Khan

----Appellant Versus State

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mayank Roy, Amicus Curiae For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 21/07/2022 Pronounced on 27/07/2022

1. 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

(2 of 6) [CRLA-367/1989]

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 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.

(3 of 6) [CRLA-367/1989]

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, whos 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

(4 of 6) [CRLA-367/1989]

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 ith 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 itnention 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 Vs State 2005 CrLJ 25 1322 (J&K),

Ganga Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1998 CrLJ 3362, Bholanath

Vs. State of Delhi 1986 CrLJ 1409 (Delhi H.C.), Kartarey &

Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 1976 CrLJ 13 (SC), Babboo Vs. State

of M.P. AIR 1979 SC 1042, D.P. Misal Vs. State of

Maharashtra 1987 CrLJ 1512 (Bom.) and Prabhoo Vs. State

of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 113.

(5 of 6) [CRLA-367/1989]

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:-

15.1 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 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.

(6 of 6) [CRLA-367/1989]

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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

2-Skant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)