KHEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-1993-9-138
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 08,1993

KHEM SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.K.NEHRU, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated April 2, 1986 passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and as a result thereof sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years.
(2.) FOR the disposal of this appeal there is no need to refer to the facts of these case. Suffice it to say that the appellant was initially charged and put to trial by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot for offences under Sections 302, 324 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Vir Pal Kaur and for causing the evidence of her murder to disappear and also for causing injuries to Balwinder Kaur, PW-3. On the basis of the evidence led during the trial, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that so far the charges under Sections 302 and 324, of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, these have not been proved against the appellant and accordingly acquitted him on the said charges. However, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted him thereunder.
(3.) I am afraid if the impugned order of conviction of the appellant under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code can be sustainable in law, once the appellant has not been found guilty for the substantive offence i.e. murder. This view is supported by a judgement of the Apex Court reported by a judgment of the Apex Court reported as Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354, relevant para of which reads as under :- "14. In order to establish the charge under Section 201, Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed, mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.