Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 36491
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
RESHMA P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5174 OF 2025 | S.C. No. 653 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS, SRI.R.MAHESH MENON, SHRI.SACHIN.P.K, SHRI.VARGHESE XAVIER
For the Respondents: SRI. M.C. ASHI, SR.PP.
The court affirmed that to establish liability under Section 212 IPC, knowledge of an accused's involvement in a crime is essential, emphasizing evidence must be examined during trial.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 204, 120-B, 212, 324, 326, 302 r/w Section 149 - Arms Act - Section 27 - Accused charged with harbouring a suspect - Petitioner argued lack of control over the alleged location and absence of proof of knowledge regarding the suspected crime, emphasizing that a crucial element of knowledge is missing. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 227 - Grounds for discharge - The court emphasized that the High Court should not conduct a microscopic examination of evidence while considering applications for discharge, reiterating that such determinations must be based on evidence presented during trial. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused in a murder case stemming from political rivalry, alleged to have harboured another accused without knowledge of their involvement in the crime. Discharge application was dismissed by the Sessions Court, convincing prima facie case against her.
Findings of Court:
The High Court concluded the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to deny discharge, stressing that the accused's knowledge of the crime would be determined at trial.
Issues: The core issue pertains to whether the petitioner had the requisite knowledge to be culpable under Section 212 of IPC and if evidence warranted her discharge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere presence of an accused is insufficient to imply harbouring; knowledge of the crime is essential, a determination reserved for trial.
Result: Crl.M.C dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details on the case origin and allegations against the petitioner. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented by the petitioner and prosecution regarding discharge. (Para 2 , 3) |
ORDER
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the 17th accused in S.C.
No.653 of 2022 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The case originated from the murder of a person named Haridasan due to political rivalry, pursuant to which Crime No.183 of 2022 got registered at the New Mahe Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 447, 204, 120-B, 212, 324, 326 and 302 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act . The petitioner was implicated as an accused for the offence under Section
212 of IPC , alleging that she had harboured the 7th accused in the house belonging to her husband situated in Pandiyalamukku in Pinarayi. The Crl.M.C is filed, aggrieved by the dismissal of petitioner's application for discharge filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sessions Court.
2. Senior Advocate Kylasanatha Pillay K.P.
appearing for the petitioner put forth the following arguments;
The house in which the 7th accused was allegedly harboured belongs to the petitioner's husband and is situated 6 Kms away from the petitioner's residence. The prosecution has not produced any material to show that her husband's house was under the petitioner's control and management. During the period of the alleged concealment, the festival named 'Pinarayi Peruma' was going on in the vicinity. Relatives and friends who had come for the festival were staying in the house belonging to the petitioner's husband as it was unoccupied. Hence, mere presence of the 7th accused in that house cannot lead to the assumption that he was harboured by the petitioner. There is absolutely no proof to presume that the petitioner had knowledge about the 7th accused’s involvement in Haridasan’s murder. The call data records relied on by the prosecution pertain to the period up to 22.02.2022, whereas the 7th accused was arrested from the house only on 22.04.2022. As such, there is no material to show that the 7th accused and the petitioner were in contact prior to the alleged concealment, which according to the prosecution was between 17.04.2022 and 22.04.2022. Moreover, to attract the offence under Section 212 of IPC , the person harbouring the offender should have knowledge that the person harboured has committed an offence. The prosecution has miserably failed to produce proof in substantiation of that crucial fact.
3. Responding to the contentions, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the CDR produced by the prosecution contains proof regarding the intimacy between the petitioner and the 7th accused. There were frequent phone calls between the two on 22.02.2022, viz; the next day of the murder. CWs 40, 41 and 42 have stated about the presence of the 7th accused in the house belonging to the petitioner's husband. There is sufficient proof of the fact that the petitioner's husband is working abroad and the petitioner was managing the house. The totality of these factors sufficiently indicate that the petitioner had harboured the 7th accused in her husband's house, with the knowledge that the 7th accused is involved in the murder of Haridasan.
4. A perusal of Annexure A6 order reveals that the discharge petition was dismissed on being convinced that the final report and materials produced by the prosecution makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. As rightly held by the Sessions Judge, the probative value of the statements of CWs 40 to 42 and the records pertaining to the calls between the petitioner and A7 cannot be decided in a petition seeking discharge. That issue cannot also be decided by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS. As held by the Apex Court in Naresh Aneja alias Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [ (2025) 2 SCC 604 ],
