Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1023 of 2009 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 16.11.2009 and order of sentence dated 18.11.2009 passed by Sri Virendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Danapur (Patna) in Sessions Trial No. 1122 of 2007] =========================================================== 1. Kartal Das son of Late Rameshwar Das 2. Guddu Das son of Kartal Das 3. Lalmuni Devi wife of Kartal Das All resident of village Naubatpur, P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1073 of 2009 =========================================================== Gautam Das, son of Kartal Das, resident of village- Naubatpur, Police Station Naubatpur, District- Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (DB) No. 1023 of 2009)\ (In CR. APP (DB) No. 1073 of 2009) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abhimanyu Sharma, APP For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwimi Sinha, APP For the informant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Tiwary, Adv =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 20-06-2012 Cr. Appeal No. 1023 of 2009 (D.B.) filed by Kartal Das, Guddu Das and Lalmuni Devi and Cr. Appeal No. 1073 of 2009 (D.B.) filed by Gautam Das have been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1023 of 2009 dt.20-06-2012 2 taken up together because both the appeals arise out of one judgment of conviction dated 16.11.2009 and order of sentence dated 18.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Danapur (Patna) in Sessions Trial No. 1122 of 2007 holding the appellants guilty under [STATUTE] and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.3000/- and seven years with a fine of Rs.1000/- respectively. 2. It is relevant here to mention that appellant Kartal Das is the father of other appellants. An occurrence of 21/22.8.2002 has led to these appeals. Informant Arjun Das Mishra (P.W. 11) reported to the police through his written application that his daughter Renu Kumari (deceased) was married with Gautam Das, elder son of Kartal Das on 15.5.1989. Soon after the marriage Kartal Das, Lalmuni Devi, Gautam Das, Guddu Das and Uma Kumari started raising demands of either Rs.50,000/- or Rs.70,000/- and when the amount was not paid within time then the informant’s daughter was ill-treated. On 19.7.2002 the informant has given Rs.20000/- and he has promised to pay residue amount later on, but unfortunately the informant’s daughter was assaulted, burnt and the dead body was made to disappear in the night of 21/22.8.2002. The informant after receiving the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1023 of 2009 dt.20-06-2012 3 information on 24.8.2002 reported the matter to the police. The written report resulted into Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2002 dated 25.8.2002 under [STATUTE] . An investigation proceeded and in course of investigation a dead body of a lady was recovered and it was claimed that the dead body was of the deceased of the case. The inquest report of dead body (Ext. 5) was prepared. It was sent to post- mortem. The post mortem was held and post-mortem report (Ext. 4) was prepared. Formal FIR (Ext. 6) has been recorded on the basis of written report (Ext. 1). After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charge under Section 302/34 and 201/34 was explained to the four accused persons. They were put on trial and by the judgment impugned the Court below has held all the appellants guilty against which the instant appeals have been filed. 3. This Court is required to see as to whether the material evidence brought on the record was enough to hold the accused persons guilty or not. 4. The defence of the accused-appellants was that the prosecution has failed to prove the genesis of the occurrence, cause of occurrence and manner of occurrence as well as place of occurrence. Most of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1023 of 2009 dt.20-06-2012 4 witnesses examined were impartial and neutral witnesses but they have not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has declared them hostile. I. O. has been unable to establish the place of occurrence where the alleged occurrence was committed. The claim of the informant of identifying the deceased has been falsified totally by the doctor who has stated that corpse was unidentifiable. The original inquest report was withheld. No explanation was furnished by the prosecution as to why the original inquest was not brought on the record. The letters (Ext. 2 to 2/4) which were subsequently brought in the evidence were fabricated and even these letters also do not show that the accused were assaulting and demanding money. The motive has also been challenged and it has been submitted that the informant had only two daughters. The deceased was one of them. Therefore, there was no occasion for the accused to kill her which was capable of laying golden eggs. Regarding P. W. 11 it has been stated that he was not examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, his evidence was also of no use of the prosecution. 5. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses. They examined: P. W. 1 Surya Narain Das, P. W. 2 Shanti Devi, P. W. 3 Champa Devi @ Basanti Devi, P. W. 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1023 of 2009 dt.20-06-2012 5 Prani Devi, P. W. 5 Lalita Devi, P. W. 6 Jheegan Yadav, P. W. 7 Ashok Kumar Singh, P. W. 8 Rajendra Das, P.W. 9 Prem Narain Das, P. W. 10 Mahavir Chaudhary, P. W. 11 Arjun Das Misra, P. W. 12 Upen

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.