Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.476 of 1990 ====================================================== 1. Santosh Kumar Singh, son of Parmeshwar Prasad Singh. 2. Magistrate Sah, son of Late Laljee Sah. 3. Chhedi Sah, son of Late Thakur Sah. 4. Nirmal Sah, son of Late Parmeshwar Sah. 5. Naresh Sah, son of Late Parmeshwar Sah. All are residents of village-Kumhari, Police Station-Kadwa, District- Katihar. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellants : Mr. Vidhanesh Mishra, Adv. Mrs. Tanuja Mishra For the State : Mrs. Shashi Bala verma, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) Date: 06-08-2012 1. Appellants Santosh Kumar Singh, Magistrate Sah, Chhedi Sah, Nirmal Sah, Naresh Sah aggrieved by judgment dated 14.09.1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1990 have filed this appeal whereby and whereunder all of them found guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] as well as R.I. for 3 years for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . 2. Succinctly the case of the prosecution has originated on the basis of the written report (Exhibit-2) filed by Sita Ram Sah Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.476 of 1990 dt.06-08-2012 2. (P.W.4) on 21.06.1989 disclosing therein that on 20.06.1989 at about 07:00 P.M. appellant Santosh Kumar Singh came to his house, handed over four eggs to his son Jogendra Sah and had asked him to prepare omlette so they could drink and enjoy toddy together. The informant claimed that when his son had said to appellant Santosh that toddy may not become available, the latter had asked his son to accompany him impressing that they would definitely get either toddy or wine. It was the care of the informant that thereafter both appellant Santosh and his son Jogendra had proceeded from his house and he too after sometime, came out from his house and had seen appellant Santosh Kumar Singh along with his son going towards embankment who after some interval were joined by other four appellants namely Magistrate Sah, Chhedi Sah, Nirmal Sah, Naresh Sah. The informant had also claimed that he had made enquiry from them as with record to their programme of drink which was properly answered by appellants Magistrate Sah and Chhedi Sah that they were going to enjoy a party being hosted by appellant Naresh Sah. At about 08:00 P.M. in the night the informant had however seen appellant Santosh in the shop of Jogendra Gupta while eating Chura and Gughani and when he had inquired from him regarding his son Jogendra, appellant Santosh had replied that he had not seen him. On which he became suspicious because on further enquiry appellant Santosh had abruptly left the shop without disclosing Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.476 of 1990 dt.06-08-2012 3. anything. The informant claimed that thereafter he began to search his son but could not any trace of him as such he had suspected some foul play at the instance of the appellant. Thus the informant having disclosed physical features and mark of identification as well as details of wearing apparel of his son had filed his written report to the police wherein he had given some sort of explanation in reporting the matter belatedly to the police on account of time consumed in searching his missing son. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Kadwa P.S. Case No. 155/1989 was registered on 21.06.1989 for offences under [STATUTE] and investigation was taken up by the police and when in course of investigation dead body of son of informant was recovered on 22.06.1989, offence under [STATUTE] was added and the police had also submitted charge sheet [STATUTE] naming all the appellants as accused and on the basis thereof the case after taking of cognizance was committed to court of Session and ultimately the trial was concluded leading to impugned judgment of conviction and sentence which is the subject matter of this appeal. 4. The defence of the appellants as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from their statement recorded under Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.476 of 1990 dt.06-08-2012 4. Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It had further been suggested that deceased himself a man of dubious reputation and might have been murdered thus in a different manner altogether by unknown persons. No oral or documentary evidence however has been adduced on behalf of defence. 5. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, it has been submitted by the Vidhanesh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment based upon more conjecture and surmises, cannot be sustained either on facts or on law. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no eyewitness to occurrence and those examined are only family members who too have deposed only to the extent of going of the deceased Jogendra with appellant Santosh Kumar Singh only and not with other co-accused namely appellants Magistrate Sah, Chhedi Sah, Nirmal Sah, and Naresh Sah and as such their status as an accused and further even recording conviction against them without having any connecting material happens to be absolutely bad and illegal. With regard to appellant Santosh Kumar Singh, it has been submitted that the theory of last scene is also not attracted against him on account of absence of proximity of time in between having the deceased in his company all along till

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, 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; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.