The Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section-201

Introduction

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is an official code of India. It covers all the aspects of the criminal law in India. Crime is an offence which can never be neglected. If we loose a criminal then, he would become more daring to do crime and society will become more haunting place to live in.

Section 201

The Indian Penal Code,1860 section 201 states that Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes 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.

It deals with two offences:

• Causing the disappearance of an offence committed, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.
• Giving false information respecting an offence committed with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.

Illustration

A knowing that B has murdered Z, assist B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for 7 years and fine too.

Punishment

1. If it is the Capital Offence:

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.

This is a Bail able, non-cognizable and non-compoundable offense triable by Court of Session.

2. If it is the if punishable with imprisonment for life:

 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.

This is a bail able, non-cognizable and non-compoundable offense triable by the Magistrate of the first class

3. If punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment:

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 extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment pro­vided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

This is a bail able, non-cognizable and non-compoundable offense triable by the court by which the offence is triable

Essential Ingredients 

1. An offence has been committed.

2. The accused knows or has reason to believe that the offence has been committed;

3. With such knowledge or belief the accused has:

• Caused any evidence of the commission of the offence to disappears.
• Given any information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false; and

4. The accused has done so with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.

Case Laws

(a.) Palvinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab

In this case, the appellant, wife of the deceased and one Mohinder pal with whom she had a liaison, were charged under section 201 of IPC for causing disappearance of evidence. It was found that the deceased was administered potassium cyanide by the accused and they disposed of the dead body by putting it in a trunk and throwing it in a well.

It was held that, it was essential for prosecution to prove affirmatively that the deceased died of poison which was administered to him by some person and that the accused took part in the concealment and disposal of the dead body knowing or having reason to believe that the death of the deceased was so caused. The postmortem examination was performed the spot the next day. No photograph of the body was taken and it was allowed to be cremated. After more than two and a half months, the 28th April, 1950 the first information report was lodged against the appellant and Mohinderpal and the26th June a challan was presented in the court of the committing magistrate Mohinderpal was not traceable and the case Was started against the appellant alone, There is no direct evidence to establish that the appellant or Mohinderpal or both of them administered potassium cyanide to Jaspal and the evidence regarding the murder is purely circumstantial.

It was also found that though Palvinder might have desired to continue her illicit intrigue with Mohinderpal she may not have desired to sacrifice her wealth and- position at the altar of love. She may have had' a motive to kill her husband but a stronger motive to preserve her own position as the wife of a prospective chief of Bhareli and that in this situation it was by no means impossible that the murder was committed by Mohinderpal alone without the consent and knowledge of Palvinder, and that though a strong suspicion attached to Palvinder, it was impossible to state with confidence that poison was administered by her. Therefore it was not possible to convict her under section 302, Indian Penal Code.

Court also said that for establishing section 201 the above mentioned ingredients must be proved. When there is no evidence to prove that the accused has caused evidence of murder to disappear, the charge of section 201, IPC must fail even when the accused have had knowledge of the removal of the dead body and there are circumstances of strong suspicion that accused had a hand in the removal. A suspicion cannot be established guilt of an offence when the evidence to prove that offence is not there.

(b.) In Bakhora Chowdhary v. State case, the Patna high court punished the husband and in-laws of the deceased even if they were acquitted of the murder charge as they had disposed of the body, potential evidence under suspicious circumstances.

(c.) In Brij Kishor v. State case, the father in law was held guilty for lodging a false FIR of his daughter in law’s suicide as he was aware of the fact that she was murdered.

 

BY: ISHITA SHARMA