Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
The courts have emphasized that the offence under Section 212 IPC is linked to the principal offence, and unless the principal offence is proved, proceedings under Section 212 against a co-accused are generally not sustainable ["Sivaraman vs State - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Sanjiv Kumar v. State of H.P. - Supreme Court"]- ["Chaman Lal Kanda vs State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["ATUL ALIAS LALO SARATANBHAI DESAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"]- ["GATTINENI VIJAYA SAI vs THE STATE OF AP - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Sivaraman vs State - Madras"]
In the complex world of criminal law under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), questions often arise about the scope of charges against individuals involved in supporting or concealing crimes. A common query is: whether an offence under Section 212 of IPC is maintainable against a co-accused. This issue touches on the definition of an 'offender,' the need for conviction of the main accused, and the evidentiary thresholds for prosecution. This blog post delves into the legal position, drawing from judicial interpretations and case precedents to provide clarity.
Note: This article offers general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Section 212 IPC criminalizes the act of harbouring or concealing an offender to screen them from legal punishment. It applies when a person, with the intention of facilitating the offender's escape, provides shelter, aids evasion, or knowingly conceals evidence of the offence. Importantly, the provision does not explicitly require the primary offender to be convicted before charges can be framed against the harbourer.
The key elements include:- Knowledge or reason to believe that the person harboured is an offender.- Intent to screen the offender from punishment.- Active acts of harbouring, such as providing refuge or altering evidence.
Courts have consistently held that these charges can stand independently, focusing on the harbourer's conduct rather than the main case's outcome.
Yes, generally, charges under Section 212 IPC against a co-accused are legally valid and maintainable, irrespective of the main offender's conviction status. The provision targets those who aid accused persons based on knowledge or reasonable belief of their involvement in an offence, not solely convicted individuals. [
#Section212IPC, #CriminalLawIndia, #IPCLaw
... 21 So far as accused Lekh Raj is concerned, we do not find an iota of material to indicate that he knew about the commission of offence by accused Sanjiv Kumar when he took him on his scooter and, therefore, the conviction of accused Lekh Raj of the offence under S.212 IPC is wholly unsustainable ... to establish the charge under S.212 and, accordingly, convicted him of the same offence. ... In this view of the matter, the con....
Section 212 of IPC provides for commission of offence for harbouring an offender. ... Let us now consider the question as to whether the offences under Sections 212 and 216 IPC have been made out as against the petitioners in view of the allegations as levelled in the FIR. ... The test is whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence? ... It is clear from the above that before convicting a person for commit....
of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence; (g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, ... with the offence under section 420 IPC for cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property with offence as noted under sections 468, and 471 o....
Upon investigation, the police will have to decide whether the said allegation is true or false. If true, then whether it amounts to an offence under Sections 406 of the IPC or 420 of the IPC. ... Act are not maintainable. ... Thus, the proceedings can lie against accused No.3 only insofar as it relates to an offence under Sections 506 and 34 of the IPC and not under any other provisions. However, in respect of the other a....
Further, if the charge against accused was under S.212, IPC simpliciter, without any other charges, then the accused could not be tried for the offence under S.212 IPC. ... as the said offence is a bailable offence, application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable. ... However, the accused was charged with another offence viz., under S.411, I....
Before deciding as to whether Section 212 (2) Cr.P.C. would apply to this case, it may be relevant to extract the said provision and also other related provisions in the Code. “212. ... That apart, even in respect of sole accused, each offence of the same kind exceeding three in number, committed within a span of one year, should be a stand alone offence. ... Section 212 (2) Cr.P.C. carves out an exception for the offence of criminal breach of tru....
(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and ... (2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1) of section 219, is ac....
(b) When Accused No. 1 was asked as to whether he had permission or licence to keep the bottles with him, he replied that he was not having such things. Then, the S.I. of Police seized the liquor bottles and the car bearing No. ... the accused. ... Being aggrieved by the registration of said crime against them, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed the present petition on the following grounds: (a) The present complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts as prima facie ingredients are not m....
He also contends that an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out because there is no question of deceiving or cheating. ... The short question that has to be considered in these petitions is whether on the facts of the case and on the basis of the notices exchanged between the parties, any offences are made out under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. ... As pointed out in that decision admittedly on the date when the accused#....
He also contends that an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out because there is no question of deceiving or cheating. ... The short question that has to be considered in these petitions is whether on the facts of the case and on the basis of the notices exchanged between the parties, any offences are made out under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. ... As pointed out in that decision admittedly on the date when the accused#....
Therefore, the offence made out against the accused is at best the offence under Section 326 IPC. Consequently, the Court is not satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections302/34 IPC. Thus, while the cause of two grievous stab injuries is attributable to the two accused, the cause of death is not.
He further contended that the deceased also doing sand business illegally and accused No.1 helped the other accused persons to collect money from him. Only offences punishable under Sections 120B and 212 of IPC were attracted against these petitioners and against accused No.8, only offence under Section 212 of IPC has been attracted, as against accused Nos.17 Sections 120B of IPC and under Section 3(2)((v) of the SC/ST PA Act is attracted. However, there is no meeting of mines by the accused persons for hatching conspiracy to commit the murder. There are no charges against ....
6. Charges against accused Hoshiyar Singh, Babli wife of Hoshiyar Singh, Ishwar son of Mool Chand, Pardeep son of Ram Kumar, Satbir son of Ram Singh, Deshraj son of Mange Ram for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325, 302, 341, 427, 506 read with Section 149 and 120B IPC were framed. Separate charge against accused Deshraj son of Mange Ram for offence under Section 212 IPC was framed.
From the plea of the defence side as well as the evidence adduced by them coupled with the evidence of PW-8 (cross-examination), it reflects that due to the severe land dispute over a cutting of a nalla (drain), there was serious altercation between the parties and one of the accused Abbas also sustained injury and in the same incident, PW5 lost his left thumb of left hand for the cut injury inflicted by the present accuse appellant. In the circumstances, the offence under Section 326 IPC is sustainable against the accused appellant, but the offence under Sections 341/307 IPC is no....
The FIR (Ex.P/7) was lodged by Dinesh Kumar to the SHO PS Sirohi on 07.10.1998 at 9:00 am alleging that his cousin brother Paresh Kumar Rawal had been murdered by inflicting a knife blow. Charge sheet for offence under Section 302 IPC was came to be filed against the accused appellant Vinod Kumar whereas proceedings qua the co-accused Mahendra Kumar, who was attributed offence under Section 212 IPC were deferred.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
