SOU VIJAYA ALIAS BABY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Vijaya faced trial along with her brother Nepalchandra for alleged commission of offences punishable under Ss. 302, 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). The II Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, acquitted the appellant of offences relatable to Ss. 302, 304-B, 498-A, but held her guilty for offence punishable under S. 201, IPC and sentenced her to undergo RI for five years. Her brother (hereinafter described as accused No.1 or A-1) was found guilty of offence punishable under Ss. 302 and 201, IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and five years respectively. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, dealt with the appeals filed by the appellant (hereinafter described as accused No. 2 or A-2). Both the appeals were dismissed. We are informed that the SLP filed by A-1 has also been dismissed by this Court.

(2.) The accusations which led to trial of both the accused-appellants are essentially as follows : Usha (hereinafter described as deceased) was married to A-1 on 16-5-1989. She came to the house of her parents on 18-5-1989 and remained there upto 4-6-1989. Thereafter the deceased was brought to the house of A-1. On 24-6-1989, father of the deceased came to know that she has been burnt to death. Though A-1 gave out that case was one of suicide. Father of the deceased did not believe it and lodged information with police. Investigation was undertaken and charge-sheet was placed charging both the accused-appellants for offences as noted above. At this point it is to be noted that A-2 was given in marriage on 15-5-1989 and had come to her brother A-1 house. Thereafter the prosecution brought materials on record to the effect that deceased and A-1 were sleeping in one room and formers dead body was found in the Kitchen. The Trial Court analysed the evidence on record to conclude that part played by both A-1 and A-2 immediately after the incident, and giving wrong information that the deceased had committed suicide clearly established that both were guilty. They also gave false information to the police immediately, as well as the parents of the deceased and other relatives later about the incident and that attracted S. 201, IPC. It was further concluded that both the accused actively participated in causing disappearance of evidence, having known that murder of the deceased has been committed, in order to protect themselves from legal punishment. They tried to project as if there was a suicide. It analysed in detail the evidence so far as the role of A-1 is concerned. In appeal, unfortunately, the High Court did not deal with S. 201, IPC specifically and even did not discuss the evidence and came to the conclusion that since both the accused persons were present at the relevant time in the house, disappearance of evidence is the act of both the accused. With this observation the appellant A-2s appeal was dismissed.

(3.) In support of the appeal Mr. U. R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the ingredients of S. 201, IPC are absent. The charge as framed was that the appellant has caused certain evidence of the said offence (murder of Ushabai) to disappear. Section 201 according to him consists of two parts i.e. (1) causing disappearance of evidence; (2) giving false information to screen offender.