SANKAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal stands convicted in S. C. No. 153 of 1999 on the file of the Court of sessions, Cuddalore for an offence under section 201 I. P. C. , for which he stands sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. He is therefore before this Court in this appeal challenging his conviction. Heard mr. N. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. C. T. Selvam, learned additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state.

(2.) HAVING regard to the conviction of the appellant under Section 201 I. P. C. , we are of the considered opinion that we need not state the entire evidence in this case except the relevant material alone. To sustain the conviction under Section 201 I. P. C. , the accused 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. Two persons were done to death by running over a lorry. They were tried in S. C. No. 85 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Sessions, cuddalore. The third accused in that sessions case turned as an 'approver'. The evidence of the approver discloses that it is not a mere road traffic accident, but it was a deliberate plan to murder the two persons. In S. C. No. 85 of 1999, the accused who were put up for trial, were found guilty under Section 302 I. P. C. and each one of them stood sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Their appeal in C. A. No. 207 of 2000 was dismissed by this Court on merits.

(3.) THE facts placed before the Court now in the present case is that accused No. 1 in s. C. No. 85 of 1999 had made use of the lorry belonging to P. W. 2 under the control of the present accused as the driver; P. W. 3 is the cleaner; en route the first accused in S. C. No. 85 of 1999 made the present accused to drink liquor excessively, as a result of which, the present accused went to sleep in the cabin of the lorry itself leaving the vehicle under the control of the first accused in S. C. No. 85 of 1999; the first accused in S. C. No. 85 of 1999 drove the vehicle and caused the death of two persons concerned in S. C. No. 85 of 1999; the present accused woke up from his slumber after the impact and shouted that an accident had taken place; the first accused in S. C. No. 85 of 1999 drove the lorry to a distance and then leaving it in the custody of the present accused left the lorry and the present accused thereafter drove the lorry and left with his employer P. W. 2. P. W. 2 is the owner of the lorry in which the accused was the driver and p. W. 3 is the cleaner. P. W. 3's evidence shows the facts culled out above. On going through the materials, we do not find the accused, except doing the above mentioned act had done anything else. There is no evidence to show that the accused had screened the evidence of the offence of murder to disappear with an intention of screening the offender, namely, the accused put up for trial in S. C. No. 85 of 1999. There is also no evidence to show that the present accused had given any information to anybody including the investigating officer in respect of that offence tried in S. C. No. 85 of 1999, which he knew or believed to be false. Since these essential ingredients of Section 201 I. P. C. are wanting in this case, we have no doubt at all that his conviction under Section 201 I. P. C. cannot be legally sustained.