Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.967 of 2009. Dated of Decision: March 10, 2010. State of H.P. ……. Petitioner. Versus Shakuntla Devi. …… Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The respondent was acquitted, for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 234 of the Indian Penal, for destroying the evidence of murder. The State has sought leave to appeal. Heard and gone through the record. In nut-shell, the prosecution case on which the respondent was put on trial can be stated thus. On 20th August, 2004, complainant Rajo Devi and her mother-in-law were in their field alongwith their minor son, named Vivek (deceased). Round about 7 p.m., they found him missing. Rajo Devi enquired about his whereabouts from her daughter. She stated that Vivek had gone somewhere outside. 2 Thereafter, the complainant alongwith other members of the family went in search of Vivek, but could not found any trace. On 21st August, 2004, Complainant Rajo Devi made a statement Ex.PW5/B, to the police, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW24/A was registered under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, police took into possession Baniyan and T-shirt alongwith three bones from a tea garden at ‘Nag-Mod’, which were taken into possession vide memos Exts.PW5/C and PW6/B, on 26.8.2004 and 15.9.2004, respectively. Police suspected Mandeep son of the respondent, a juvenile offender and arrested him on 19th September, 2004. Sleepers of Vivek were recovered at his instance vide recovery memo Ex.PW5/D. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was done to death by Mandeep by hitting him by ‘Hamam-Dasta’ handle, which was recovered pursuant to the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Police also recovered bunch of hair, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/A. It was alleged that the respondent herein had concealed clothes of her son Mandeep after getting it washed, with an intention to screen her son from the legal punishment. Since Mandeep was a juvenile offender, his challan was put up before the Juvenile Justice Board, Una, whereas the challan against the respondent was presented before the learned trial Court, for the commission of offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the end of trial, she was acquitted, on the ground 3 that the prosecution has failed to adduce any reliable and legal evidence. Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code punishes a person, who knowing that an offence has been committed, destroys the evidence of that offence or gives false information in order to screen the offender from legal punishment. This section is designed to penalize attempts to frustrate the course of justice. Thus, to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution is obliged to prove that the accused knew that an offence has been committed and any person in order to save the real offender from punishment destroys the evidence or furnishes false evidence. To prove the charge against the respondent, prosecution examined PW11 Bakshi Chand, uncle of the deceased, PW14 Satya Devi and PW15 Narinder Kumar. PW14 Smt. Satya Devi has totally contradicted her version. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that the respondent told the police that she has washed the clothes of Mandeep and kept them at the same place, from where, they were recovered. It is not a legal evidence, because the confessional statement made to the police by the accused is not admissible in evidence and further the statement of PW15 Narinder Kumar, also suffers from same vice. Insofar as the statement of PW11 Bakshi Chand is concerned, he stated that the respondent had washed the clothes of her son Mandeep, who had committed the murder of Vivek and these clothes were blood stained, but he was not 4 an eye witness to that effect. In the cross-examination, he categorically stated that he did not disclose this fact to the police at the time of recording of his statement by them and also admitted that he has disclosed this fact for the first time in the court when examined as a witness. He further admitted that from the date of missing of his nephew Vivek, he was having inimical relation with the respondents. Therefore, his statement appears to be prejudicial towards the respondent and his improved version is the result of the prejudice which he was carrying against the respondent. On the examination of the record, I find no legal evidence to connect the respondent with the alleged offence, also for the reason that there is no evidence that the respondent was knowing about the commission of offence by her son. Therefore, in these circumstances, leave to appeal is refused. Application stands disposed of. March 10, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.