Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. The law in this regard is well settled. Way back, in the matter of Harishchandrasing Sajjansinh Rathod and another v. State of Gujrat4, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the scope and applicability of Section 202 of the IPC have held that said provision does not apply to the person alleged to have committed the principal offence and also held that for prosecution under Section 202 of the IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that main offence before making the person liable under Section 202 of the IPC and observed as under:-

19. Similar is the proposition laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of K.K.Patnayak, Dr. (Smt.) & 2 Ors. v. State of M.P.5 in which it has also held that offence under Section 202 of the IPC cannot be tried along with Sections 306 or 498-A of the IPC and observed as under:-

"3. Learned counsel for the State urges that it might have been an offence u/s 202 IPC. That offence requires giving information to police by a person who is bound to give such information regarding commission of offence. No material has been placed on record that these accused knew that in burn injuries of this lady some offence was involved. Even if we assume that it should have been their duty to inform and it is a common practise also, it is clear that offence u/s 202 IPC cannot be tried along with the charge u/s 306 or 498-A IPC. It does not fall u/s 223 Cr.P.C. or under any other provision thereof can be tried jointly. These petitioners could not be tried jointly in that assumed offence u/s 202 IPC along with those who committed offence u/s 306 or 498-A IPC.
25. In the matter of Ramphal v. King Emperor10, it has been held that provisions contained in Section 202 IPC are not intended to be punitive in themselves, but are intended to be facilitate information as to the commission of an offence. The report states as under:-
"The second point is more serious and it is to the effect that the report as to the commission of the offence having been admittedly made in the presence of the applicant by the Chaukidar and that report being admittedly correct in all particulars no further duty or obligation lay upon the applicant under the terms of section 45 Cr.P.C., for adding his own weight to the information supplied by the Chaukidar by furnishing fresh information on the same lines. In my opinion the contention is sound and must be accepted. It is admitted that in consequence of the information furnished by the village Chaukidar the Sub-Inspector

26. In the matter of P.K. Sarangi v. State of Orissa and Anr.14, it has been held by the Orissa High Court that omission under Section 202 IPC must not only be omission, but a willful omission with some ulterior object. Paragraph 7 of the report states as under:-

"7. So far as offence punishable under Section 202, IPC is concerned, it postulates commission of offence, though it does not expressly say so. The provisions of the section are analogous to those of Section 176, IPC which is however more general, for, while it relates to the legal obligation to furnish information on any subject, Section 202. IPC relates to the commission of an offence. As it is, both the sections have an application limited to the class of persons "legally bound to-give information. Such persons are, for examine, the police, village headman, village accountant, owner or occupier of land, etc. as specified in Section 40 of the Code. The public are "also under the legal obligation to inform the police regarding the commission of certain offences specified in Section 39 of the Code. It mentions the offence of which every person is bound to give an information to the nearest Magistrate or police officer, and his failure to do so is made punishable under Section 202 IPC Intentional omission is made culpable. It must be only an omission, but a willful omission, that is to say, an omission which amounts to 11 (1879) 4 Ca. 623 12 (1893) 20 Cal. 316 13 (1884) 7 Mad. 436 14 1995(I) OLR 319 suppression due to some ulterior object. Section 39 also deals with intention to commit any offence punishable under certain sections of the IPC. Omission to give information must be with reasonable cause to avoid culpability."