9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Section 212 of the Penal Code for harbouring a person involved in a serious offense without conclusive evidence of knowledge or belief regarding the offense committed. Analysis: The petitioners were convicted under Section 212 of the Penal Code for harboring an individual involved in a serious offense, with the intention of shielding him from legal consequences. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were found sleeping with the accused in a marai, indicating ownership, where the person involved in the dacoity was also present. The crucial question revolved around whether the petitioners were aware or had reason to believe that the individual had committed the offense. The Courts inferred the petitioners' knowledge based on circumstantial evidence, such as the shared sleeping arrangement. However, the absence of direct evidence on this point raised doubts about the conviction's validity. In the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge acknowledged the lack of direct evidence establishing the petitioners' knowledge regarding the offense committed by the individual they harbored. While the prosecution presented the case emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the circumstances of the arrest, the Courts highlighted the requirement under Section 212 to prove that the harbored individual had committed an offense. The judgment referenced a similar case where the premature prosecution for harboring an accused individual was deemed unjustified until the conclusion of the accused's trial and a definitive determination of guilt by the Court. The judgment concluded that the conviction under Section 212 could not be sustained due to the lack of conclusive evidence demonstrating the petitioners' knowledge or belief regarding the offense committed by the individual they harbored. The Court emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the necessity for a clear link between the harbored individual and the offense to establish liability under Section 212. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the conviction and sentence of the petitioners were set aside. In a concurring opinion, Bira Kishore Ray, J., agreed with the assessment and decision to overturn the conviction, indicating a unanimous stance on the insufficiency of evidence to support the petitioners' guilt under Section 212 of the Penal Code.
|
