http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  151 of 1997

PETITIONER: Wattan Singh & Ors.                                              

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab                                                  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2004

BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal & S.B. Sinha      

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [With Criminal Appeal No.227 of 1997]

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

       These appeals by special leave challenge the judgment of the High Court by  which the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 201 of the Indian  Penal Code has been upheld.         The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 1997 are family members of  Baldev Singh.  Appellant Nos. 3 and 5 are brothers of Baldev Singh and appellant  No.4 is wife of appellant No.3 whereas appellant No.6 is wife of appellant No.5.   Appellant No.7 is sister of Baldev Singh.  Baldev Singh is son of appellant No.2  who has since died and, therefore, the appeal in so far as the said appellant is  concerned has abetted.  The sole appellant, Harjap Singh, in Criminal Appellant  No.227 is family friend of Baldev Singh.           The case of the prosecution in brief is as under :         Baldev Singh was married with Manmohan Kaur in the year 1979.  It is  alleged that Baldev Singh was harassing Manmohan Kaur for not bringing  sufficient amount of dowry.  She visited house of her father in village Nangal  Thindal on 21st June, 1985 and told him that a demand of Rs.30,000/- was still  continuing from her husband and she has been told to return to her husband’s  house only with the said amount and in case the amount is not arranged, she need  not return to her matrimonial house.  Her father, PW4 (Harbans Singh), however,  sent back his daughter to her matrimonial house with assurance that he would soon  visit the house of her in-laws and settle the matter there.  Manmohan Kaur left  behind her three years old daughter at her parents house.  On 22nd June at about  2.35 p.m., Baldev Singh came to the house of his father-in-law and informed him  that Manmohan Kaur was missing from the house since early morning that day.   Harbans Singh told his son-in-law that she had come to him only a day before and  was complaining about her harassment on account of the demand of Rs.30,000/-  made by him, his parents, sisters, sisters-in-law and brothers as dowry and asked  his son-in-law to have a thorough search of Manmohan Kaur.  Harbans Singh also  asked his son-in-law to send information to him immediately when she is found  and on his own he went out along with his relatives to search his daughter.  He  could not succeed in his attempt and on his return to his village on 23rd June, he  learnt that dead body of Manmohan Kaur had been traced by her in-laws.   Immediately, Harbans Singh rushed to the house of the in-laws of Manmohan  Kaur.  On reaching there, he saw the dead body of Manmohan Kaur being  consigned to flames at the cremation ground.  On enquiry from Baldev Singh and  his parents as to why they did not wait for his arrival, Harbans Singh was told that  dead body was cremated by them after informing the Police and after completing  the necessary formalities and also that it was getting decomposed and they could  not have waited any longer for his arrival for cremation.  On 24th June, Harbans  Singh filed a written application (Exhibit PD) with the Senior Superintendent of  Police, Hoshiarpur expressing his doubt that his daughter has been murdered by  her in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry.  It was mentioned therein that he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

was suspecting the appellants besides Baldev Singh and his father.  The complaint  of Harbans Singh was sent to the SHO with the endorsement dated 4th July, 1985  to the effect that prima facie case falls under Section 306 IPC and that the case  should be registered.  The formal FIR under Section 306 was registered on 4th July  and investigation conducted whereafter challan was filed and case committed by  Magistrate to Court of Sessions for trial under Section 306/201 IPC.         Harbans Singh, not satisfied with the investigation, also filed a criminal  complaint against the appellants and others under Section 302/201/149 IPC.  The  complaint case was also committed to Court of Sessions and was directed to be  tried with the aforesaid Police case.  Both the cases were consolidated.         The Sessions Court acquitted all the accused of offence under Section 302  as also of offence under Section 302/149 IPC.  For offence under Section 306,  Baldev Singh was held guilty.  The appellants were acquitted of charge under  Section 306.  They were, however, found guilty of offence punishable under  Section 201 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year was imposed on each of  them besides fine.         The appeal filed by the State and also by Harbans Singh challenging  judgment of acquittal and the appeal filed by the appellants challenging their  conviction for offence under Section 201 were disposed of by impugned common  judgment of the High Court.  All the appeals have been dismissed.  Thus, the  acquittal of the appellants for offence under Section 306 has been confirmed.  The  acquittal of the appellants for offence under Section 306 IPC has attained finality.   The conviction of Baldev Singh for offence under Section 306 IPC has also  attained finality as he has been refused leave to appeal against the impugned  judgment of the High Court.   The sole issue that remains to be examined in these appeals is regarding the  correctness of the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 201 IPC.         The Sessions Court has found that when Harbans Singh with PW8  (Darshan Singh) reached the cremation ground, pyre of Manmohan Kaur was  burning and all the accused along with many other persons were present there and  according to the accused persons, dead body was in their house before it was taken  to the cremation ground and cremated and also that no autopsy on the dead body  of Manmohan Kaur was conducted.  On these findings only, the conclusion  reached by the Sessions Court is that the body was cremated in a haste without  informing the parents of the deceased and the Police and these circumstances  indicate that all the accused persons being close relations and being in the same  house had the knowledge or were having reasons to believe that offence in relation  to the death of Manmohan Kaur had been committed and, thus, they caused the  disappearance of the evidence of the crime of offence by cremating the dead body  of Manmohan Kaur.   The reasons for confirming the conviction of the appellants stated by the  High Court are that the accused persons, except Harjap Singh who was a close  friend of Baldev Singh, are family members of Baldev Singh and they knew about  not only the death of Manmohan Kaur but also the fact that she was missing from  the house of Baldev Singh.  It has been further noticed that from the statement of  Harbans Singh (PW4), Kulwaran Singh (PW5) and Darshan Singh (PW8), it  appears that all the accused were present at the cremation ground when dead body  of Manmohan Kaur was cremated and, thus, they were responsible for eliminating  the evidence by getting the dead body cremated without informing the police as  also Harbans Singh.  They all acted in prosecution of common object in getting the  evidence of the offence eliminated and in screening Baldev Singh of offence  punishable under Section 306 IPC.         Baldev Singh has been convicted and the appellants acquitted of offence  under Section 306 IPC, namely, "abetment of suicide".  The appellants have been  found guilty of offence under Section 201 IPC.  For conviction under the said  offence, the prosecution was required to prove that the appellants had knowledge  or had reason to believe that an offence under Section 306 had been committed by  Baldev Singh and with such knowledge or belief they caused evidence of  commission of the offence to disappear either with the intention of screening the  offender from legal punishment or with that intention gave any information  respecting the offence which they knew or believed to be false.         The only finding recorded against the appellants is that they are family  members of Baldev Singh.  In respect of Harpal Singh, only finding is that he was  a family friend.  Further finding recorded is that they were present at the house  where the body of Manmohan Kaur had been kept and also at the cremation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

ground.  The mere presence of the accused at the house or at the cremation ground  or their relationship with her husband would not attract the provision of Section  201 IPC.   Presumption that the appellants had the knowledge of commission of  offence cannot be drawn from their mere presence at the house or cremation  ground or on account of relationship.  There is no other finding except above  noticed against the appellants.  We have also perused the record.  There is no  evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants for offence under Section 201 IPC.  It  cannot be held that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that offence had  been committed and participated in cremation to conceal and dispose of the dead  body.         In absence of evidence, it cannot be assumed on suspicion alone that the  appellants must have known or must have reason to believe that Baldev Singh  abetted in commission of offence and, by being present at the cremation ground,  they caused the evidence of commission of the offence to disappear with intention  to screen Baldev Singh from legal punishment. This Court in Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab [(1953) 4 SCR 94]  has held that in order to establish the charge under Section 201 IPC, it is essential  to prove that an offence has been committed \026 mere suspicion that it has been  committed is not sufficient.  It has to be proved that the accused knew or had  reason to believe that such offence had been committed, and with the requisite  knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment  caused the evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such  offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false.  Palvinder  Kaur’s decision has been followed in various later decisions {Suleman Rahiman  Mulani & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1968 SC 829]; Nathu & Anr. v.  State of Uttar Pradesh [(1979) 3 SCC 574]; and V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala  [(2001) 3 SCC 549]}. For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction of the appellants cannot be  sustained.  Therefore, the impugned judgment, to the extent it confirms the  conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 201 IPC, is set aside and  appeals allowed.