1962 (11) TMI 82 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Manipulating Records to Protect Co-Accused

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code for manipulating official records to save a co-accused from ... - Issues:- Conviction under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code- Acquittal of co-accused and its impact on the appellant's conviction- Prosecution barred by limitation under section 42 of the Police ActAnalysis:Conviction under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code:The appellant was convicted under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code for manipulating official records with the intent to save a person from legal punishment. The appellant, a Police Head-constable, made false entries in the Police Station diary to save a Railway Guard, Chauhan, from legal consequences related to a shooting incident. Despite Chauhan's subsequent acquittal, the court upheld the appellant's conviction as the evidence indicated the appellant's actions were aimed at protecting Chauhan. The court emphasized that the appellant's guilt under section 218 was not dependent on Chauhan's acquittal, as the appellant's intent to save Chauhan was evident from the record manipulation, irrespective of the final outcome of Chauhan's trial.Acquittal of Co-accused and its Impact:The acquittal of Chauhan, who was charged with abetting the appellant in making false entries, did not invalidate the appellant's conviction under section 218. The court found that the appellant's actions were independent of Chauhan's involvement and were driven by the intent to save Chauhan from legal repercussions. Even though Chauhan's acquittal raised doubts, the court maintained that the appellant's conviction was justified based on the evidence of record manipulation to protect Chauhan. The court highlighted that the acquittal of one accused does not necessarily absolve another accused if their guilt is established independently.Prosecution Barred by Limitation under Section 42 of the Police Act:The appellant raised a defense of limitation under section 42 of the Police Act, arguing that the prosecution was time-barred. However, the court clarified that section 42 only applies to offenses committed under the Police Act and not to offenses under other laws, such as the Indian Penal Code. Since the appellant was prosecuted under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, which carries a higher penalty, the time limit specified in section 42 of the Police Act was deemed inapplicable. The court emphasized that the appellant's offense fell under a different act, precluding the application of the limitation provision in the Police Act.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the appellant's intent to save a co-accused through record manipulation. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the correctness of the High Court's decision and underscoring the need for stringent punishment for offenses undermining the integrity of official records and criminal investigations.