NANAKI Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Sec. 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 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 Sec. 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and further directed to pay fine of Rs.2000.00., 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 Ss. 302 and 201 of the IPC. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur by its impugned judgment convicted appellant.Banwari @ Banwasi Patel for offence under Sec. 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 Sec. 201 of the IPC by recording a finding in paras 39 and 42 as under:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_90_LAWS(CHH)8_2022_1.jpg</IMG>

(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. He would further submit that no finding has been recorded by the trial Court that the appellant charged with the offence under Sec. 201 of the IPC had the knowledge or reason to believe that offence under Sec. 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.