SCC Online Web Edition, © 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Sunday, November 07, 2021

Printed For: Perla Bali Sai Charitha, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal Law
Penal Code, 1860
— S. 201 — Offence under — Evidence required for proof of — Must be proved that offence
was committed and the accused knew that it was committed
In order to establish the charge under S. 201, Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been
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.
Cases are not unknown where death is accidental and the accused has acted in a peculiar manner regarding the
disposal of the dead body for reasons best known to himself. He may be afraid of a false case being started
against him. Hence a definite proof as to the cause of the death is necessary. Mere suspicion, howsoever strong
is not enough.
Offence based or circumstantial evidence, on facts, held not proved.

Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab,

1953 SCR 94 : 1953 Cri LJ 154 : AIR 1952 SC 354

Bench Strength 3. Coram : M.C. Mahajan, N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ.
[Date of decision : 22/10/1952]

Followed in AIR 1968 SC 829: 1968 Cri LJ 1013

Relied on in Russel Joy v. Union of India, (2018) 3 SCC 179
The case of Palvinder Kaur was however explained and limited in (1975) 2 SCC 570: 1975 SCC (Cri) 678. The Court
observed:

"The decision in Palvinder Kaur's case is a precedent on its own facts. The observations of this Court to the effect that
'Jaspal died, that his body was found in a trunk and was discovered from a well and that the appellant took part in the
disposal of the body do not establish the cause of his death or the manner and circumstances in which it came about'
cannot be construed as an enunciation of a rule of law of general application.

In Palvinder Kaur's case there was, in the first place, no material, direct or indirect, justifying a finding that the death of
Jaspal was caused by the administration of potassium cyanide and if the defence version was believed his death would
be the result of an accident. If that version was disbelieved, then there was absolutely no proof of the cause of his
death. In the method and the manner in which the dead body of Jaspal was dealt with and disposed of by the accused
did raise some suspicion but from these facts, the Court found it unsafe to draw a positive conclusion that he
necessarily died an unnatural death. Nor could the possibility of the commission of suicide by Jaspal be totally ruled
out."

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.