Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 202 penal code in Dr. Nitin Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2025Matching Fragments
3. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 3. The dead body was exhumed and NC: 2025:KHC-K:5019 HC-KAR subjected to post mortem examination. As per the post mortem report, death of the deceased was due to asphyxia, resulting from ligature strangulation associated with the manual throttling. During investigation, it was found that, there was dispute between the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 3 in the matter of the property held by the deceased. As a result of which accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted him. Accused Nos.2 to 3 said to have caught hold of the deceased while accused No.1 strangulated his neck with plastic rope and also with hands, which resulted in his death. Accused Nos.1 to 3 proclaimed that the deceased had fallen down in the bathroom and was shifted to the hospital. The petitioners being the Doctors examined him and declared that he was brought dead. The dead body was handed over to accused No.3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have taken the dead body and buried it. However, accused Nos.4 and 5 being Doctors in the Hospital, have not informed the fact to the Police that the dead body was brought to the Hospital. Therefore, the NC: 2025:KHC-K:5019 HC-KAR final report came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and against accused Nos.4 and 5 for the offence punishable under Section 202 of IPC. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them.
(4) To sustain a conviction under the above quoted S. 202 of the Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove (1) that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that some offence had been committed, (2) that the accused had intentionally omitted to give information respecting that offence and (3) that AIR 1979 SC 1232 NC: 2025:KHC-K:5019 HC-KAR the accused was legally bound to give that information. We have gone through the entire evidence bearing on the aforesaid offence under Section 202 of the Penal Code but have not been able to discern anything therein which may go to establish the aforesaid ingredients of the offence under S. 202 of the Penal Code. The offence in respect of which the appellants were indicted viz. having intentionally omitted to give information respecting an offence which he is legally bound to give, not having been established, the appellants could not have been convicted under S. 202 of the Penal Code. It is well settled that in a prosecution under Section 202 of the Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the main offence before making a person liable under this section. The offence under S. 304 (Part II) and the one under S. 331 of the Penal Code not having been established on account of several infirmities, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants under S. 202 of the Penal Code. The High Court has also missed to notice that the word 'whoever' occurring at the opening part of S. 202 of the Penal Code refers to a person other than the offender and has no application to the person who is alleged to have committed the principal offence. This is so because there is no law which casts a duty on a criminal to give information which would incriminate himself. That apart the aforementioned ingredients of the offence under Sec. 202 of the Penal Code do not appear to have been made out against the prosecution. There is not an iota of evidence to show that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the aforesaid main offences had been committed.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5019 HC-KAR After these observations, the Hon'ble Apex Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 202 of IPC.
9. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of in Father Madalaimuthu Vs. State of Kerala,2 where the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 376, 201 and 202 read with Section 149 of IPC and the offences under Sections 376, 306 and 201 was against the main accused, while the offence under Section 202 of IPC was against the petitioners, before the co-ordinate Bench of the Kerala High Court, who have sought for quashing the criminal proceedings. The Court held that, the offence alleged under Section 202 of IPC against the petitioner therein is a separate and distinct non-cognizable offence triable by the Magistrate. Therefore, the investigation of the said offence can be conducted by the Police only after getting permission from the Magistrate as 2024 KER 73127
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5019 HC-KAR provided under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., and accordingly, the criminal proceedings was quashed.
10. In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the offence alleged against accused Nos.1 to 3 are under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, while the offence alleged against the present petitioners being accused Nos.4 and 5 is under Section 202 of IPC. Therefore, the offence alleged against the petitioners is distinct and separate and un-connected with the offence alleged against accused Nos.1 to 3. Similarly, accused Nos.1 to 3 are also not connected to the offence under Section 202 of IPC. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that, separate FIR should have been registered against the present petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 202 of IPC, after following the procedure as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Since, there is a serious lapse in the procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer, I am of the opinion, that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be