Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.229 of 1998 With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 231 of 1998 **** Against the judgment, dated 27.05.1998, passed by Sri Vijay Prasad Poddar, Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, Patna, in S. Tr. No. 634 of 1993 **** 1. Allauddin Mian @ Md.Allauddin, son of Rahim Mian 2. Salahuddin Mian, son of Rahim Mian 3. Manzoor Mian @ Mr. Manjoor Ansari, son of Naim Mian All residents of village Hathiakand Sarai, P.S. Shahpur, in the district of Patna .. Appellants (in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.229/98) 1. Dhurkheli Mian 2. Qasim Mian, son of late Hamid Mian 3. Md. Anwar Mian @ Anwar Ansari, son of Yaseen Mian 4. Md. Yaseen Mian, son of Rahim Mian All residents of village Hathiakan Sarai, P.S. Shahpur (Danapur), district of Patna .. Appellants (in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.231/98) Versus The State Of Bihar .. Respondent (in both the cases) **** For the Appellants .. Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, (in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.229/98) Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sharfuddin, Adv. For the Appellants .. Mr. Ranbir Singh, Adv. (in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.231/98) as Amicus Curiae For the Respondent .. Mr. Sujeet Kumar Singh, APP (in both the cases) **** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the State. 2 2. Both the appeals are being heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment as both arise out of same S. Tr. No. 634 of 1993 arising out of Shapur P.S. Case No. 162 of 1992, in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 229 of 1998 and Shahpur (Danapur) P.S. Case No. 165 of 1992 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 231 of 1998. 3. The appellants have been convicted under Section 201/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further, undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 4. The prosecution case, as alleged that the sister of the informant was married with one Jamaluddin Ansari on 08.04.1988 and it is alleged that on 17.05.1992 she was done to death for non-fulfillment of the demand of Rs.10,000/- as dowry for which the deceased was used to subject cruelty. The death was not intimated and the informant learnt about the death on 18.05.1992 from Islam Ansari and then he filed a complaint and on the on the complaint first information report was lodged under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the investigation proceeded. 5. During the investigation the dead body was taken out from the grave and was identified and on autopsy found that she was done to death by burning on which a charge sheet submitted and during the trial eight witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and three witnesses on behalf of the defence and the defence of the accused is that they are not the relative of Jamaluddin Ansari and they are co-villagers living separately and even has no concern with the daily affairs of Jamaluddin Ansari. 3 6. Taking into consideration the evidence, the trial Court convicted Jamaluddin Ansari for offence under Section 304B of the Penal Code, however, convicted the appellants for offence under Section 201 read with 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and for non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, the husband, Jamaluddin Ansari, is not the appellant in both these appeals and the seven persons, who are appellants, here, have been convicted under Section 201 of the Penal Code. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that though there are seven witnesses examined in this case, but, there is no evidence that the appellants are instrumental in disposing off the dead body or evidence causing disappearance of the evidence to screen the offender from legal punishment or even giving false information to save the offender. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case regarding the marriage, subjecting cruelty for non-fulfillment and Rs.10,000/- demanded as dowry as well as they have not informed about the occurrence of the death of the deceased and the dead body disposed off. There is evidence that the dead body written statement taken out and found the death in suspicions circumstance, however, there is no evidence that who disposed of the dead body and what was the act of omission or commission by these appellants. P.W. 1 himself has stated in paragraph 15 of his deposition, in this case, that Jamaluddin Ansari used to live separate from his father and mother and they have separate kitchen and in paragraph 17 he has stated that 4 Slahuddin Mian, Alauddin Mian, Md. Yaseen Mian, Manzoor Mian and Md. Anwar Mian are the neighbours. Since, there is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 1, the informant or other witnesses the appellants disposed off the dead body and the prosecution witnesses even not claimed to have been present at the time of funeral nor there is any evidence that who participated in the funeral nor there is any evidence about the commission or omission for causing disappearance of the evidence or even giving false information. 9. The learned counsel for the State, however, also does not dispute the fact that there is no evidence regarding the disappearance of the evidence by these appellants. 10. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances, since, there is no evidence, at all, about the disappearance of the evidence of causing disappearance of the evidence by these appellants to screen the offender and, hence, I find and hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges under Section 201 of the Penal Code. 11. The order of conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial Court, is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. ( Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court, The 07th day of September, 2011, N.A.F.R., S.A.