EMPEROR Vs. GHANASHAM RAMCHANDRA MANTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the accused, whom I shall call Dada Saheb, was charged before Mr. Fry and two assessors at Satara as follows:- That you, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence, i.e., the murder of Narayan Sonar, had been committed, caused evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender in that you ordered the corpse of Narayan to be burnt with undue haste and ordered the cleansing of the blood stains in Mahadeo's temple and further with the same intention gave information respecting the offence which you knew or believed to be false in that you caused a panchnama to be framed in which an opinion was expressed that death was due to snake-bite.

(2.) It appears that the deceased Narayan Sonar was a young man and an actor by profession and that he died either on the night of the 18 or morning of the 19 March 1905 and there is no doubt that there are suspicious circumstances with regard to his death.

(3.) The present accused Dadasaheb was, in the first instance, put up for trial before Mr. Fry and two assessors on a charge of abetting the murder of Narayan. On that charge he was acquitted. He was then put up for trial on a charge under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. In an enquiry under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, it has been held repeatedly that the concealment must be concealment by a third person and not by the person who is Charged with having committed murder and aided or abetted the murder. "With regard to a charge under Section 201 Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the disappearance of evidence should be after the offence and in the present case the evidence is said to have been caused to disappear after the offence.