PALSHIKAR, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 27. 5. 1992 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar (Sriganganagar) convicting the accused for offence under Sec. 302. I. P. C. for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; for offence under Sec. 201 I. P. C. to five years' rigorous imprisonment and 5 a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.
(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned P. P. , we have gone through the records of the case. We have re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and have examined the records of this case critically in the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel at the Bar. Facts giving rise to the prosecution stated briefly are that on 29. 10. 1989, First Information Report (F. I. R.) was lodged in the Police Station by Liladhar P. W. 1 who is Sarpanch of village that dead body is lying near the field of one Birbal and the body has injuries on it. Investigation was taken up and the accused was prosecuted after being arrested for causing murder of deceased Hanuman and causing injuries appearing on his body. It is alleged by the prosecution that Hanuman was murdered by the accused-appellant in his home in Haryana State and the body was loaded in truck belonging to the deceased and was dropped on the road in Rajasthan. After the discovery of the body as aforesaid, investigation was done, challan was filed and as many as 21 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case that the death of Hanuman amounted to murder and is caused by the accused. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion of guilt and by his aforesaid judgment, sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life on account of the murder. This order is impugned in this appeal on several grounds raised before us by the learned counsel while urging the appeal. Basically the learned counsel argued that the courts in Rajasthan had no jurisdiction to try the case as the offences both punishable under Secs. 302 and 201 I. P. C. have been completed in State of Haryana and not in Rajasthan. He has taken us through the record of the case to prove his contention by showing that according to the prosecution itself, the deceased Hanuman was murdered by the accused in his house in Haryana, the body was removed by the accused with the intention to dispose of his evidence of murder from the house of the deceased in Haryana that the offence was complete after the body was successfully removed from the site and, therefore, there is no cause of action in the State of Rajasthan including the courts therein to take up jurisdiction. The argument though appears to be attractive in the first place, is devoid of any substance. In order to meet such contingency Sec. 180 has been enacted in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1974. Even prior to that, the 1898 Code had also similar provision. Sec 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as thus:- ``180. Place of trial where act is an offence by reason of relation to other offence-When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done. ''. It will be seen from the above quoted provisions of Sec. 180 that Rajasthan courts definitely have jurisdiction in the present case because the offence under Sec. 201 is completed in the State of Rajasthan. Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus:- ``201 Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender:-Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, cause 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 extent to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. '' The section, therefore, postulates punishment for causing disappearance of evidence of an offence. Here the evidence was the dead body and the accused was causing its disappearance by removing it from Haryana State and dumping it in Rajasthan State. Consequently, the offence is complete when causing disappearance of the evidence of offence is completed and according to the person committing the offence whether the action is completed or not, is immaterial. It is based basically on intention of guilt for which the offender should be punished. Attempt to cause disappearance of any evidence of commission of an offence is also penal under the section. In the present case, the offence was, therefore, complete on the date of the dump and the prosecution had a right for the trial of the accused in Rajasthan State. This being the position, by virtue of Sec. 180 quoted above, the courts in Rajasthan have jurisdiction to try the offence because the offence punishable under Sec. 201 is in regard to another act, which is also an offence viz. . . , causing murder of Hanuman in Haryana State and, therefore, courts in Rajasthan have jurisdiction. The contention raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is, therefore, rejected.
(3.) ADVERING to the merits of the case, it was submitted by the learned counsel that the conviction is solely based on circumstantial evidence and even if the entire circumstantial evidence as led by the prosecution is accepted, it is hopelessly short of the required standards of proof on which judgment of conviction was based. He, therefore, prays for acquittal of the accused. This submission requires re-appreciation of the evidence for a finding thereon. P. W. 1 Liladhar is the Sarpanch of the village where the body was discovered in the State of Rajasthan. He was informed of the offence by P. W. 2 Birbal. P. W. 1 has filed the F. I. R. , which he has proved. P. W. 2 Birbal who has come to the witness box has stated that when he went to his field, he discovered the body. He does not identify the same and he states that he reported this discovery to the Sarpanch. He has then deposed that the police came to the scene of occurrence the next day i. e. , the day after the discovery, which in effect further means that the body was discovered on 29. 10. 1989 around 10 A. M. and the police came on the site next day i. e. , on 30. 10. 1989. P. W. 1 Liladhar has deposed that he was informed of the discovery of the body by P. W. 2 Birbal on 29. 10. 1989 at about 3 P. M. and Birbal P. W. 2 states that he saw the body at about 1 P. M. The witness has also deposed to the injuries that he saw on the body. The witness was also present the next day when the police came and was, therefore, witness to seizure of ticket recovered from the dead body. He has deposed - ;