# Revti & Ors v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 1139
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-04
- **Case number:** Crl. Appeal No. 17 of 1990
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revti-ors-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-47970
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code- Sections
306 & 201- Conviction under Section 201
IPC alone- Charge under Section 306
I.P.C. has not been found to be proved
against accused persons before trial court
and they were acquitted of this charge.
Therefore, it can be inferred that no
offence of abatement to commit suicide
has been proved against accused persons.
Suicide, as such, is no offence and this is
logical that suicide self is not proved by
cogent evidence and accused cannot be
held guilty for causing disappearance of
evidence punishable under Section 201
I.P.C. for making out a case under Section
201 I.P.C. This fact is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the deceased had
died an unnatural death by consuming
poison in the fateful night. The accused
are already acquitted of the charge under
Section 306 IPC by the learned trial Court
and said verdict of acquittal has not been
challenged either by the State or by the
complainant- Mere fact that the deceased
allegedly died an unnatural death, could
not be sufficient to bring home charge
punishable under Section 201 IPC unless
the prosecution was able to establish that
the accused persons knew or had reason
to believe that an offence has been
committed and have done something
causing the offence of commission of
evidence to disappear, he cannot be
convicted.

Where the prosecution has failed to establish
the main offence u/s 306 IPC and that the
accused
did
something
to
cause
the
disappearance of evidence relating to the
commission of the said offence, then the
accused cannot be convicted u/s 201 IPC. (Para
24, 26,27)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgement relied upon:-

## Text

11 All. Revti & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1139

37. With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition is allowed to the extent
indicated above.

38. The papers kept in sealed cover
under order dated 09.09.2022 shall be
returned by the office to the learned
counsel for the respondent-Corporation.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 1139
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Crl. Appeal No. 17 of 1990

Revti & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R. Bhargava, Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code- Sections
306 & 201- Conviction under Section 201
IPC alone- Charge under Section 306
I.P.C. has not been found to be proved
against accused persons before trial court
and they were acquitted of this charge.
Therefore, it can be inferred that no
offence of abatement to commit suicide
has been proved against accused persons.
Suicide, as such, is no offence and this is
logical that suicide self is not proved by
cogent evidence and accused cannot be
held guilty for causing disappearance of
evidence punishable under Section 201
I.P.C. for making out a case under Section
201 I.P.C. This fact is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the deceased had
died an unnatural death by consuming
poison in the fateful night. The accused
are already acquitted of the charge under
Section 306 IPC by the learned trial Court
and said verdict of acquittal has not been
challenged either by the State or by the
complainant- Mere fact that the deceased
allegedly died an unnatural death, could
not be sufficient to bring home charge
punishable under Section 201 IPC unless
the prosecution was able to establish that
the accused persons knew or had reason
to believe that an offence has been
committed and have done something
causing the offence of commission of
evidence to disappear, he cannot be
convicted.

Where the prosecution has failed to establish
the main offence u/s 306 IPC and that the
accused
did
something
to
cause
the
disappearance of evidence relating to the
commission of the said offence, then the
accused cannot be convicted u/s 201 IPC. (Para
24, 26,27)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgement relied upon:-

1. Crl. Appeal Nos. 265-266 of 2018 (Arising out
of S.L.P. (Crl) Nos. 1815-1816 of 2016) Dinesh
Kumar Kalidas Patel Vs The St. of Guj.

2. Palvinder Kaur Vs St. of Punj. 1952 AIR 354
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar,
learned counsel for the convict-appellants,
learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and
perused the material placed on record.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
08.12.1989
passed
by
learned
IInd
Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, in
Sessions Trial No. 145 of 1989, State Vs.
Revti and others, arising out of Case Crime
No. 332 of 1987, Police Station Vrindavan,
District Mathura, whereby the appellants
1140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were convicted and sentenced under
Section 201 I.P.C. with one year R.I. It was
also directed that the period spent by the
accused in jail shall be adjusted towards the
sentence imposed as above.

3. The order sheet shows that the
appeal was admitted by this Court as far
back as on 4.1.1990 and on the same day
both of the appellants were enlarged on bail
by this Court.

4. Pursuant to the communication of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in
compliance of the order of this Court dated
17.12.2018, the Office has submitted its
report dated 27.2.2021, a perusal whereof
shows that appellant no.5, namely, Dalla
has died. The death confirmation report is
accompanied with requisite documents as
per the circular of this Court. In view of the
said fact, this criminal appeal qua appellant
no.5- Dalla, stands dismissed as abated and
appeal shall proceed in respect of the
surviving appellants, only.

5. Prosecution case as appears on
perusal of record is that in the night of
7/8.9.1987, Smt. Sondevi, who was married
to appellant No.1-Revti, attempted to
commit
suicide.
According
to
the
prosecution, in the evening of the date of
occurrence, at about 4 P.M. there had been
some exchange of words between Revti
and Sondevi, Revti told her not face him
and she should die. Feeling depressed, she
took poisonous pills and died in the night.
The accused above named took the dead
body
for
funeral.
Thereafter
Madan
sprinkled kerosene oil over the dead body
of Sondevi and burnt her. Kajoli, Digamber
and others had seen the occurrence. Report
about the incident was lodged by Bharat
Singh on 8.9.1987 at 7:30 A.M. Police
registered a case at G.D. No.12. Sri Tomar,
Investigating
Officer
of
this
case,
immediately proceeded to the spot, funeralground and collected burnt ashes and bones
and prepared Fard (Ex.Ka-4) and after
investigation, he submitted charge-sheet
against
the
accused.
The
case
was
committed to Court of Session for trial
which was transferred to the Court of IInd
Additional Session Judge, Mathura by
orders of Session Judge

6. Burnt ashes and bones, recovered
by the Investigating Officer were sent to
the
chemical
examination,
but
no
poisonous contents were detected.

7. Accused pleaded not guilty to the
charge under Section 306/201 I.P.C. framed
against them respectively, and alleged false
implication on account of enmity.

8. Prosecution to prove its case
examined
PW-1
Kajoji
and
P.W.-2
Digamber. Kajoli has staed that thee was
some exchange of words in between
Sondevi & Revti. Revti said her that she
should die, in as much as she had not given
a birth to a male child, and Sondevi took
the poisionous pills and in the night she
died. Madan, Revti, Bheema, Dalla, Baby
and Girraj took her dead body to funeral
ground and Madan sprinkled kersine oil
upon her dead body and burned her to
ashes. To the same effect is the statement of
Digamber- P.W.-2.

9. PW-3 Kashi Nath has been
declared hostile. PW-4 Bharat Singh is the
informant of the case. He has proved report
(Ex.Ka-1). PW-5 S.I. L.K.Tomar, is the
Investigating Officer of the case, he proved
recovery memo of burnt ash and bone
(Ex.Ka-4),
chemical
examiner
report
(Ex.Ka-5), chargesheet (Ex.Ka-6) and G.D.
(Ex.Ka-7).
11 All. Revti & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1141

10. Accused examined one Damodar in
support of their defense plea. He has stated
that he was made to sign on a plain paper by
the Sub-Inspector and Revti had never scolded
his wife. Son Devi had not consumed poision
and she died natural death.

11. Learned court below referred Section
113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads
as follows:-

"113-A. Presumption as to abetment of
suicide by a married woman.--When the
question is whether the commission of suicide
by a woman had been abetted by her husband
or any relative of her husband and it is shown
that she had committed suicide within a period
of seven years from the date of her marriage
and that her husband or such relative of her
husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court
may presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband or by such
relative of her husband."

12. Learned court below observed that
according to the prosecution version, the
deceased was married about 8 years back and
thus, presumption contained under Section
113-A I.P.C. cannot be made against the
convict-appellants.

13. Now remains the oral evidence of
Kajoli and Digamber. From their evidence, no
doubt, it is clear that Smt. Sondevi had taken
poisonous pills and later on committed suicide,
but thee is no evidence to show that it was
necessarily on account of any scolding
extended by Revti, or any other family
member of her in-laws. So the evidence on
record falls short of proof for offence under
Section 306 I.P.C.

14. On the basis of above finding, the
trial court has recorded conviction of the
appellants under Section 201 I.P.C. and
acquitted them of the charge punishable
under Section 306 I.P.C. on the ground that
the evidence on record falls short of proof
for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The
accused were granted interim bail by the
trial Court after conviction.

16. Feeling aggrieved by the above
judgment, present criminal appeal has been
filed on behalf of the convicted persons
with a prayer to set aside the impugned
judgment and sentence passed by the court
below against the appellants.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants
raised several contentions on merits of the
case and submitted that as appellants have
been acquitted in main offence punishable
under
Section
306
I.P.C.
and
their
conviction under Section 201 I.P.C. is
illegal. Learned counsel for the appellants
raised a question of law as to whether the
conviction under Section 201 I.P.C. could
have been maintained by acquitting him of
the main offence under Section 306 I.P.C..
He further submitted that the evidence of
the witnesses are unreliable. No family
members of the deceased have come into
the picture either as witness or as informant
of the case. The witnesses of prosecution
are the villagers, who have implicated the
appellants due to previous enmity. There is
no scientific evidence in support of the
prosecution version that the deceased had
consumed some poisonous substance or
committed suicide. The consistent version
of the defence is that she had died on
account of a natural death and that is why
she was cremated by convict persons who
are husband and family members of the
deceased in usual course. There is no
witness of the fact that she and consumed
poison or committed suicide. The evidence
of witnesses is based on hearsay. Learned
1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel for the appellants prayed for
allowing the appeal and for acquittal of
appellants from charge punishable under
Section 201 I.P.C.

18. Learned A.G.A. countenances the
impugned judgment and submitted that
there is no factual and legal error in the
present judgement and it is based on
evidence on record. Thee is nothing to
disbelieve the evidence of witnesses of fact,
who have supported the prosecution
version.

19. No appeal appears to have been
filed against the verdict of acquittal passed
by the court below under Section 306 I.P.C.
in respect of the appellants, therefore, this
Court has to concentrate on verdict of
conviction under Section 201 I.P.C. passed
against the appellants.

20. The first information report in
present case was lodged by P.W.4 Bharat
Singh, who has testified during trial that his
father was chaukidar (watchman) of the
village at the time of incident. He had gone
out of village. He had heard in the morning
that Son Devi had consumed poison and
died. He was not aware as to for what
reason she had consumed poison. Her last
rituals were performed by cremation. He
had informed the incident to police outpost
orally, which was scribed by the police
constable. The report is Exhibit Ka-1,
which bears his signature. It was written by
the police constable as per his version. He
resides in village Mora. He did not reside in
village Nagla. He did not know as to who
burnt her.

21. P.W.1- Kajoli and P.W.2-
Digamber Singh have been examined by
the prosecution as witnesses of fact and
learned court below has lace partial
reliance on testimony of these witnesses to
the charge under Section 201 I.P.C..
However, P.W.1 Kajoli stated before the
court that accused Revati- the husband of
the deceased had exhorted the deceased,
who was his wife on fateful evening that
she could not give birth of a son, so he did
not want to see her face. She should die and
she consumed poisonous tablet in the night
and died. The witnesses stated that he was
not literate and he did not know the dates
and did not inform the investigating officer
about the date of incident. He cannot
understand as to how he has stated in his
statement the date of incident. The house of
Revati lies after 10 to 15 houses from the
home of witness. He has filed an affidavit
before the Investigating Officer marked as
Ex.-Kha-1 and it was rightly got written by
him. In his written affidavit the facts are
based on the information received by him
by village watchman and he had told him
that Son Devi was killed. He was passing
through the house of Revati in the evening
of incident and heard voice of Revati that
he was exhorting his wife. Narayan and
Digamber were coming out side of the
house of Revati. Then he also visited the
house of Revati. He had heard these things
on the shop of bidi and he had not told the
investigating officer that he had heard the
voice of Revati (accused) from the bidi
shop. The first informant is son of Gullu
Chaukidar and they are resident of Nagwa
Mora. The accused who are present in the
court had cremated the body of Son Devi
and the accused Madan had sprinkled
kerosene oil on dead body of Son Devi
before it was ignited. The deceased had
never delivered a child.

22. PW-3 Kashi Nath has been
declared hostile as he has not supported
case of the prosecution. PW-2 Digamber
Singh is the star witness of the prosecution,
11 All. Revti & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1143
who has stated that deceased had given
birth of a daughter, who died and she had
not given birth to a male child. Around two
year and one month ago, he was sitting
with Revati and both were smoking
Hukkah, then Revati had threatened his
wife for not giving birth to a male child,
evenafter 8 years of the marriage and said
that you should die. Deceased had
consumed poison in the same night and
died. Accused persons took the dead body
in cremation ground and burnt it after
sprinkling kerosene oil. He had cautioned
the accused persons to avoid cremation of
dead body in such manner but they did not
pay the heed. He had not reported this
matter to anyone. This witness was given
suggestion by defense that accused Madan
and his brother were challaned under
Section 151 Cr.P.C., to which he denied.

23. Some contradictions are suggested
by defense in sworn testimony of PW-2 and
his previous statement recorded under
Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. although case
diary is not available on record.

24. Paper No.9-A/1 is the report of
Forensic
Science
Laboratory
dated
28.10.1988, which is marked as Ex.Ka-5, in
which it is stated that no metallic poison was
found in ashes and bones, which was sent for
scientific examination in present case i.e.
Case Crime No. 332 of 1987, under Sections
306, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Vrindavan,
District Mathura. There is no plausible
evidence, whether in form of oral or
documentary that the deceased had consumed
poison in that fateful night. The consistent
case of the defense is that she died a natural
death and the accused were implicated in a
manufactured case due to village rivalry. No
complaint or FIR has been lodged from the
side of parents of the deceased. An affidavit
has been found on record purportary filed by
Vishal, father of deceased- Son Devi, dated
10.9.1987, which is addressed to Judicial
Magistrate, Sadar Mathura, in which it is
stated that the deceased had given birth to a
female child who subsequently died. The
deceased died natural death in the night of
7/8.9.1987 and she was cremated on 8.9.1987
before co-villagers of village Nagla Morra, in
accordance with Hindu rites. She was never
tortured or harassed by her husband or her inlaws. Original Health Card of the child of
Son Devi, wife of Revati Singh dated
11.6.1986 has also been filed by the defence
in support of the version that she has given
birth to a female child on 11.6.1986. Charge
under Section 306 I.P.C. has not been found
to be proved against accused persons before
trial court and they were acquitted of this
charge. Therefore, it can be inferred that no
offence of abatement to commit suicide has
been
proved
against
accused
persons.
Suicide, as such, is no offence and this is
logical that suicide self is not proved by
cogent evidence and accused cannot be held
guilty for causing disappearance of evidence
punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. for
making out a case under Section 201 I.P.C. It
is mandatory that the accused was 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. Hon'ble Apex Court
in Criminal Appeal Nos. 265-266 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos.
1815-1816 of 2016) Dinesh Kumar Kalidas
Patel vs. The State of Gujarat, decided on
12.2.2018, has placed reliance on the dictum
of Apx Court in the case of Palvinder Kaur
vs. State of Punjab, wherein it is held as
follows:

"In order to establish the charge under
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, it is
essential to prove that an offence has been
1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
committed, -- mere suspicion that it has
been committed is not sufficient, -- that the
accused knew or had reason to believe that
such offence had been committed and with
the requisite knowledge and with the intent
to
screen
the
offender
from
legal
punishment causes the evidence thereof to
disappear or gives false information
respecting such offences knowing or having
reason to believe the same to be false." AIR
1952 SC 354 AIR 1953 SC 131 AIR 1968
SC 829 The conviction in this case was
ultimately set aside on the aforementioned
legal position and the facts."

25. Hon'ble Apex Court while
discussing and considering various case
laws in Dinesh Kuamr Kalidas Patel's
case, in which appellant was convicted
under Section 498-A, 201 I.P.C. has held:

"thus, the law is well-settled that a
charge under Section 201 of the IPC can be
independently
laid
and
conviction
maintained also, in case the prosecution is
able to establish that an offence had been
committed, the person charged with the
offence had the knowledge or the reason to
believe
that
the
offence
had
been
committed, the said person has caused
disappearance of evidence and such act of
disappearance has been done with the
intention of screening the offender from
legal punishment. Mere suspicion is not
sufficient, it must be proved that the
accused knew or had a reason to believe
that the offence has been committed and yet
he caused the evidence to disappear so as
to screen the offender. The offender may be
either himself or any other person.

It is further held that We are afraid,
the High Court is not justified in
maintaining the conviction under Section
201
only
on
the
ground
that
no
communication was given to the police and
that the post-mortem had not been
performed. The Trial Court has taken note
of the fact that the father of the deceased
and her brother (who is a doctor) had
attended the last rites of the deceased and
neither of them had any complaint or
suspicion at that time of the commission of
any offence. The Sessions Court has also
taken note of the suicide note left by the
deceased wherein she had taken the entire
blame on herself. Yet the court has taken
the view, from the consideration we have
extracted
from
paragraph-16
of
the
Sessions court judgment, that the deceased
might have been in a state of depression
having remained alone for most of the time
and it amounted to torture. The appellant
has been acquitted of the offence under
Section 498A by the High Court, and
rightly so. The prosecution has also not
been able to satisfy the ingredients under
Section 201 of the IPC. Neither the
Sessions Court nor the High Court has any
case that there is any intentional omission
to give information by the appellant to the
police. It is also to be noted that
prosecution has no case under Section 201
of the IPC against the appellant.

As held by this Court in Hanuman and
others v. State of Rajasthan, the mere fact
that the deceased allegedly died an
unnatural death could not be sufficient to
bring home a charge under Section 201 of
the IPC. Unless the prosecution was able to
establish that the accused person knew or
had reason to believe that an offence has
been committed and had done something
causing the offence of commission of
evidence to disappear, he cannot be
convicted."

26. Therefore, in the light of the
totality and facts and circumstances of the
case, this fact is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the deceased had died
11 All. Ahsan Vs. State of U.P.
1145
an unnatural death by consuming poison in
the fateful night. The accused are already
acquitted of the charge under Section 306
IPC by the learned trial Court and said
verdict of acquittal has not been challenged
either by the State or by the complainant.
Enmity between accused and witnesses has
been suggested by the defence, however,
same has been denied by the witnesses
Kajoli and Digamber, in their sworn
testimony.

27. In view of above, reasoning of
above cited judgements of Apex Court is
applicable where it is held that mere fact
that the deceased allegedly died an
unnatural death, could not be sufficient to
bring home charge punishable under
Section 201 IPC unless the prosecution was
able to establish that the accused persons
knew or had reason to believe that an
offence has been committed and have done
something
causing
the
offence
of
commission of evidence to disappear, he
cannot be convicted.

28. Thus, as aforesaid, this Court is of
the view that the learned Sessions Court is
not justified in convicting the appellants
under Section 201 IPC and the same cannot
be sustained.

29. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated
8.12.1989 in S.T. No.145 of 1989, passed
by Additional Session Judge- IInd, Mathura
is hereby set aside and the appellants
namely, Revati, Babu Lal, Girraj, Bheema
and Madan are acquitted of the charge u/s
201 I.P.C.

30. It is directed that the accusedappellants shall file bail bonds to the tune
of Rs.40,000/- and two sureties each, in the
likeamount to the satisfaction of the learned
trial Court, within a period of one month
from today in compliance of Section 437
(a) of Cr.P.C.

31. Let a copy of this judgment along
with lower court's record be sent back to
the
court
concerned
for
immediate
compliance.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 1145
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN, J.

Jail Appeal No. 119 of 2021

Ahsan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Mohit Behari Mathur

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law- Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Sections 137 & 138- On perusal of
Sections 137 and 138 of Evidence Act,
1872, makes it clear that the victim has to
be examined in chief and then she has to
be cross examined by the defence- It is
not the case of prosecution that defence
has foregone or waived its right for crossexamination or that full opportunity of
cross-examination
was
not
granted,
rather, it appears that the prosecution had
not produced the victim P.W.1 for her
complete cross-examination on the date
fixed, nor, the trial court made an
endeavour to take coercive measures
against the witness to secure her presence
for
cross-examination
in
order
to
complete her statement. The record does
not indicate that any such endeavour or