Removing Dead Body From Scene Of Murder To Another Place Doesn't Come Under Ambit Of S. 201 IPC: Allahabad High Court

Explaining the scope of Section 201 IPC, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that removing the corpse of a murdered man from the scene of the murder to another place does not come within its ambit as the removal does not cause the disappearance of evidence of the commission of the murder.

Stressing that to constitute an offence under Section 201 I.P.C. there must be a disappearance of some evidence of the commission of offence, the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian observed thus:

"Section 201 looks upon a person giving false information with intent to screen an offender as an accessory after the fact and makes him culpable as an offender committing an offence against public justice. Section 201 will apply only when the false information touching the offence with intent to screen the offender is given to those interested in bringing the offender to justice," 

The bench held thus while partly allowing a criminal appeal filed by a murder convict to the extent of his conviction under Section 201 I.P.C., however, the Court upheld his conviction under Section 302.

The case in brief

As per the prosecution's case, the Accused/Gulam Rashul used to work for his employer Ashok. On February 2004, the accused took Gaurav (deceased), son of his employer, aged about 9 years, with him to the sugarcane field at 1:30 pm. At 5 pm, he returned back all alone.

After being interrogated about the whereabouts of the deceased, the accused confessed that he had killed him by strangulation and his dead body was lying in the Sugar cane field.

Vide impugned judgment and order dated June 30, 2005, the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life.

For conviction under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. Challenging his conviction, he moved to the HC.

Court's observations

At the outset, regarding his conviction under section 201 IPC, the Court noted that there was no evidence on record to show that the appellant/accused had concealed the dead body of the deceased or the identity of the deceased.

The Court also noted that the fact regarding the killing of the deceased by strangulation was confessed by the appellant/accused himself and thus, it was not a case wherein the appellant/accused tried to screen himself from the legal punishment or he had misled the informant or anyone and that there was no evidence to establish that the appellant had caused any evidence of the commission of crime i.e. murder, to disappear.

In view of this, the Court found the conviction of the accused under this section to be erroneous. 

Further, regarding the charges under Section 302 IPC, the Court noted that the accused had not denied the fact that he had not taken the deceased from the house towards the field to collect the fodder and he also did not take a defence that on his way from the house of Ashok to the sugar cane field deceased had parted his company.

The Court further noted that the prosecution had proved that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused and therefore, it was the responsibility of the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased after he was last seen with him by the prosecution witnesses.

However, the Court observed that the Accused had failed to explain the fact which was within his special knowledge as per the mandate of Section 106 Indian Evidence Act.

Therefore, finding that the prosecution had successfully completed the chain of circumstances, the Court upheld his conviction under Section 302 IPC. However, his conviction under Section 201 was set aside.

Case title - Gulam Rashul vs. State of U.P [JAIL APPEAL No. - 7291 of 2017]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 543

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment