Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 60

14.12. Another Supreme Court case-Sections 330 and 345, I.P.C. and section 201, I.P.C.-

There is another Supreme Court case, Roshan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 1413, para. 15., which is relevant to this point. When a person causes the evidence of the two offences under sections 330 and 348, Penal Code to disappear, by burning the body of a person alleged to have been tortured, does he commit two separate offences under section 201 of that Code? This was the question dealt with by the Supreme Court, which held:

"Now, by the same act, namely burning of the dead body of Raja Ram, the appellant causes the evidence of two offences to disappear.

"Taking a strict view of the matter, it must be said that by the same act the appellants committed the offences under section 201. The case is not covered either by section 71 of the Indian Penal Code or by section 26 of the General Clauses Act. But, normally, no court should award two separate punishments for act, and the punishment for the two offences cannot be limited under those the same act constituting two offences under section 201. The appropriate sentence under section 201 for causing the evidence of the offences under section 330 to disappear should be passed, and no separate sentence need be passed under section 201 for causing the evidence of the offence under section 348 to disappear."

This case emphasises the aspect of oppression.

General Clauses Act, 1897 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys