State of Orissa vs Chintai Reddy and Others

P.K. Mohanti, J.—This is an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State of Orissa.

Five accused persons were committed for trial. Accused No. 1 Chintai Reddy stood charged u/s 304. Part II, Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of his wife and all the five accused persons stood charged u/s 201, Indian Penal Code fur having caused disappearance of the evidence of murder by disposing of the dead body with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.

The accused persons denied the charges and contended that the death of the deceased was not homicidal but natural. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses out of whom p. ws. 1 and 9 were said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case and accepted the defence plea that the death of the deceased was a natural one. It also came to hold that p. ws. I, 8 and 9 had given false evidence for procuring a conviction of the accused persons. Accordingly, all the accused persons were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State of Orissa came up in appeal.

By order No. 7 dated 4-5-1978 this Court dismissed the appeal so far as it relates to Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as the notice of appeal could not be served on them and it was represented by the learned Counsel for the State that their whereabouts could not be ascertained despite all efforts. So the question that survives for consideration in this appeal is whether the acquittal of Respondent No. 5 Kesari Naga Reddy of the charge u/s 201, Indian Penal Code is justified.

As already stated, Respondent No. 1 Chintai Reddy was acquitted of the charge u/s 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code and by virtue of the order No. 7 dated 4-5-1978 referred to above, the order of acquittal stands final and conclusive.

Before there can be a conviction u/s 201, Indian Penal Code it must be proved that an offence, the evidence of which is caused to disappear, has actually been committed. Therefore, the first pre-requisite of an offence u/s 201, Indian Penal Code is that an offence must have been committed, and there must be an offender. A person cannot be convicted of screening an offender when the offender himself has been tried and is acquitted of the offence. Once it is held that the alleged offender is not guilty, other persons could not be convicted of screening him from punishment. In this view of the matter, the order of acquittal of Respondent No. 5 cannot be interfered with.

The appeal fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.