Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Mehran Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 2025
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._________/2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.10075 OF 2022]
MEHRAN KHAN APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant along with co-accused were prosecuted
for various offences punishable under Sections 302, 34,
120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
‘the IPC’). As far as present appellant is concerned, he
has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
201 of the IPC. The conviction of the appellant has been
confirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
The substantive sentence imposed on the appellant is of 5
years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs.200/-. As can be seen from the findings recorded by
both the courts, the evidence against the appellant is in
the form of recovery of the weapon allegedly used in the
offence at the instance of the appellant and the allegation
Signature Not Verified
that the handle of the weapon (axe) was destroyed by the
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2025.04.09
10:28:44 IST
Reason:
appellant as there was lot of blood on the handle. The
2
allegation is that the appellant burnt the handle of the
axe.
3. We have perused the evidence of PW14 who is the only
witness examined to prove the memorandum under Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Evidence
Act’). The other witness to the memorandum has not been
examined.
4. Except the evidence of alleged recovery and what is
mentioned in the memorandum, there is no evidence against
the appellant.
5. We have carefully perused the memorandum. It is not
mentioned in the memorandum that while the appellant was in
custody, he furnished information about the place at which
he had concealed the weapon of offence. It appears that he
was taken in a vehicle by the police and while he was being
taken by the vehicle, he allegedly stopped the vehicle at a
particular point and led the police party to a place from
where the axe was recovered. Therefore, this is a case
where the appellant was directly taken by the police to the
spot where weapon was allegedly concealed. Requirement of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act is that information must be
received from a person in the custody about any fact and
that the said fact must be discovered pursuant to the
information. In this case, even going by the memorandum,
3
prior information was not furnished by the appellant.
Therefore, Section 27 of the Evidence Act will have no
application in this case and the recovery at the instance
of the appellant was not established.
6. As far as the act of burning the handle of axe is
concerned, there is no independent evidence. The
prosecution relied upon a statement of the appellant
recorded in recovery memo at Ex.45 which is per se not
admissible in evidence.
Section 201 reads thus:
“201. Causing disappearance of evidence of
offence, or giving false information to screen
offender.—Whoever, 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,
or with that intention gives any information
respecting the offence which he knows or
believes to be false,if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence
which he knows or believes to have been
committed is punishable with death be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.—and
if the offence is punishable with
[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment
which may extend to ten years, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years’
4imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for any term not extending
to ten years, shall be punished with
imprisonment of the description provided for
the offence, for a term which may extend to
one-fourth part of the longest term of the
imprisonment provided for the offence, or with
fine, or with both.”
7. Going by the prosecution’s case, there is no material
on record to show that either the appellant was knowing
that the offence has been committed or had reason to
believe that an offence was committed. The knowledge that
the axe was used in the offence is also not attributed by
the prosecution to the appellant. The knowledge is an
essential ingredient of the offence under Section 201 of
the Act. Moreover, the presence of the intention of
screening the offender from legal punishment must be shown.
Thus, none of the ingredients of the offence under Section
201 of the IPC were proved. Hence, the conviction and
sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained and the same
is set aside.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
9. The bail bonds of the appellant stands cancelled.
..........................J.
(ABHAY S.OKA)
.........................J.
NEW DELHI; (UJJAL BHUYAN)
MARCH 18, 2025.
5
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.4 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10075/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
27-07-2022 in SBCRA No. 367/1989 passed by the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur]
MEHRAN KHAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)
(IA No. 160545/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 18-03-2025 This matter was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANFor Petitioner(s) :Mr. H. D. Thanvi, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Achal Singh Bule, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Amod Kumar Bidhuri, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Saquib Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Manu Nagar, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
6
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order
which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(KAVITA PAHUJA) (AVGV RAMU) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
