Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 202 penal code in Piyush Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. on 23 June, 2021Matching Fragments
After receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court of Special C.J.M., Kanpur Nagar. The case was remitted to the Court of Sessions on 09.03.2011 for trial. The trial Court framed the charges against accused Piyush Kumar Verma for the offence under Section 377, 376(2F), 302, 201 Indian Penal Code while charges for the offences under Section 304/34, 109, 201, 202 Indian Penal Code were framed against accused Chandra Pal Verma, Sudhir Kumar Verma @ Mukesh Verma and Santosh Kumar Singh. The trial then commenced, in which, prosecution produced 32 witnesses. 40 documents were exhibited to prove their case. Four Court witnesses were examined. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused produced two witnesses in defence apart from one document to prove their innocence. After completion of the trial, the accused-appellant Piyush Kumar Verma was convicted for the offences under Section 302, 377 Indian Penal Code while other two appellants, namely, Sudhir Kumar Verma @ Mukesh Verma and Santosh Kumar Singh were convicted for the offences under Section 304A, 202 Indian Penal Code and sentenced, as mentioned earlier. Chandra Pal Verma was acquitted of the offences.
The appeal of accused-appellant Piyush Kumar Verma is, accordingly, dismissed.
The appellants Sudhir Kumar Verma @ Mukesh Verma and Santosh Kumar Singh have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 304A and 202 Indian Penal Code. They were, however, acquitted of the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code as the prosecution failed to lead evidence to prove that those two appellants suppressed or disappeared the evidence. They were even acquitted from the offence under Section 304 Indian Penal Code. The appellants, however, convicted for the offence under Section 202 and 304A Indian Penal Code.
The conviction for offence under Section 202 Indian Penal Code has been made in reference to the statement of PW-28 Aditya and Exhibit A-35, i.e., CDR report of Mobile Nos. 9336126404 and 9389540378. It is true that both the mobiles were used for frequent conversation with main accused Piyush Kumar Verma. The conversation was made during the relevant time on the day of occurrence but merely for that reason, it cannot be said that offence under Section 202 Indian Penal Code is proved.
The offence under Section 202 Indian Penal Code found proved mainly in reference to inaction of accused for sending the victim/deceased to the hospital. The trial Court ignored that no evidence was produced that Sudhir Kumar Verma @ Mukesh Verma was administrating the educational institution where occurrence took place and was under legal duty. The Principal of the school was otherwise Sunita Mishra and has not been made an accused. The conviction for the offence under Section 202 Indian Penal Code has been made alleging negligence of the accused ignoring that offence under Section 202 Indian Penal Code would be made out when the accused is under a legal obligation to convey the information about commission of offence but failed to do so. The finding of the trial Court does not show even an allegation against the accused-appellants Sudhir Kumar Verma @ Mukesh Verma and Santosh Kumar Singh about their legal obligation to inform about the crime and their failure to do so. The learned trial Court has recorded finding about negligence and not for their legal duty. The finding of the trial Court in regard to the offence under Section 202 Indian Penal Code cannot be accepted as even the ingredients of the aforesaid provision could not be proved by the prosecution by leading evidence. Section 202 Indian Penal Code is quoted hereunder for ready reference :
"202. Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform.--Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."
The trial Court has not recorded finding about legal obligation of the accused to make out a case for offence under Section 202 Indian Penal Code. The negligence of the accused would not make out a case under Section 202 Indian Penal Code unless their legal obligation is proved.