TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable on the evidence and charge as framed.
Analysis: Section 201 requires proof that an offence was committed, that the accused knew or had reason to believe that it had been committed, and that with such knowledge the accused caused disappearance of evidence or gave false information with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. The prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had the requisite knowledge or had caused disappearance of evidence in relation to the offence. The acquittal on the murder charge did not by itself preclude conviction under Section 201, but on the facts there was no material to sustain the necessary ingredients. The defect in the charge also assumed importance because the substance of the accusation proved was materially different from what was framed, and Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 did not save the conviction in the absence of supporting evidence.
Conclusion: The conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.
TaxTMI 
