4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC have been framed based on the same evidence and when the charge of murder itself not accepted, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC alone. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of U.P Vs. Kapil Deo and another reported in 191 Supp(2) SCC 170. The learned trial Judge, who convinced with the evidence on record and found the appellant not guilty for the offence of murder, ought to have acquitted him from the offence of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC.
xxx
15. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution did not prove the fundamental fact that there was an offence committed and it was committed by the accused and for which purpose, he had taken the vehicle with an intention to conceal the material evidence viz., the dead body. Without proving the first two ingredients, the third ingredient i.e., causing disappearance of an offence will lose its hold. The learned Trial Judge without considering the above material aspects, had chosen to find the accused guilty for the offence under Section 201 IPC and hence, it is liable to be reversed.
PARTY: Venkatachalam vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.240/2010) – CRL.Apl.No: 150 of 2015 – 02.03.2023 CORAM: THE HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA.
