The court rules that acquittal from harbouring charges requires evidence of intent to conceal an offender, which was lacking due to police surveillance.

ORDER

Dated this the 20^th day of August, 2025 The petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 5 in S.C. No.1453 of 2023 pending on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, wherein they are facing prosecution for the charge under Section

212 of IPC . The essential facts are as under;

On 15.02.2023, the 1^st accused allegedly trespassed into the courtyard of the defacto complainant’s house and inflicted serious injuries on his head and forehead. The crime was therefore registered against the 1^st accused and two others for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC . The petitioners were arraigned as accused Nos.4 and 5 in the final report on the allegation that they had harboured the 1^st accused in the house of the 1^st petitioner with the knowledge that the 1^st accused is an accused in a serious crime.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegation regarding commission of the offence under Section 212 of IPC by the petitioners is baseless, since the materials produced by the prosecution, even if accepted in their entirety, is not sufficient to attract the offence. Referring to the remand report filed in the case of the 2^nd accused, it is submitted that the 1^st accused had also suffered serious injuries in the alleged incident and was admitted in the Taluk Hospital, Kothamangalam, from where he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, and treated there as an inpatient. Through out his treatment and even thereafter, the 1^st accused was under police surveillance. In the meanwhile, the

1^st accused moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha and on dismissal of that application, approached the High Court. Therein, the 1^st accused was granted interim bail by this Court on 09.05.2023 and the bail was confirmed as per Annexure C order dated 30.6.2023, since the petitioners had, in the meanwhile, surrendered before the Investigating Officer, and was released on bail after interrogation. The 1^st accused had resided in the 1^st petitioner’s house, during the interregnum between his discharge from the hospital and grant of anticipatory bail by this Court. Such residence, by itself, is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 212 of IPC , the police version being that all throughout the 1^st accused was under their surveillance.

3. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, merely by reason of the police having stated that the 1^st accused was under their surveillance, it cannot be inferred that all through out the 1^st accused was under police surveillance and the 1^st petitioner had not harboured the 1^st accused by permitting him to reside in the house. It is pointed out that the 1^st accused had suffered grievous injuries and coupled with his antecedents, the only possible assumption is that the petitioners had harboured the 1^st accused, in spite of their knowledge that he was involved in a serious crime.

4. The essential ingredient for attracting the offence under Section 212 is harbouring or concealing the offender, in spite of knowing or having reason to believe that such person is the offender. Further, the concealment of harbouring should be with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. As far as the case at hand is concerned, it is not in dispute that the 1^st accused had suffered serious injuries in the incident and was hospitalised for some period. The question therefore whether the petitioners had willfully concealed or harboured the 1^st accused after his discharge from the hospital. Here, it is pertinent to note that in the remand report dated 16.02.2023 filed by the Investigating Officer while producing the 2^nd accused, specific averment is that the 1^st ac