9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Stay of proceedings against Accused No. 5 until final adjudication against Accused No. 1 to 4 for charges under Sections 302 and 392, IPC. Analysis: The judgment deals with a petition filed by Accused No. 5 seeking a stay of proceedings against him until the final adjudication against Accused No. 1 to 4 for charges under Sections 302 and 392, IPC. The substance of the accusation is that Accused No. 1 to 4 killed a businessman and took cash from him, while Accused No. 5 harbored them and shared the stolen property. Accused No. 5 is charged with the offense of harboring the offenders and receiving stolen property. The petitioner argues that he cannot be tried until Accused No. 1 to 4 are convicted. The prosecution argues that all accused can be charged and tried together under Section 223 of the CrPC. The key issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 212, IPC, which requires proof of harboring an offender. The petitioner contends that for an offense under Section 212, IPC, there must be an offender who has committed an offense and that Accused No. 1 to 4 must be convicted before he can be considered an offender. The prosecution argues that under Section 223, CrPC, persons accused of different offenses in the same transaction can be charged and tried together. The court examines the provisions of Section 212, IPC, which require proof of harboring an offender who has committed an offense. The court also considers previous case law interpreting similar provisions. The court analyzes the requirements of Section 212, IPC, which include the presence of an offender who has committed an offense and the knowledge of the accused in harboring the offender. The court distinguishes previous cases where accused were charged only under Section 212, IPC, from the present case where the petitioner is also charged under Section 411, IPC, for receiving stolen property. The court holds that all accused, including the petitioner, should be tried together as the offenses are part of the same transaction, as mandated by Section 223, CrPC. The court concludes that there are no grounds to stay the proceedings against the petitioner, and the petition is dismissed. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 212, IPC, in the context of harboring offenders and receiving stolen property. It emphasizes the importance of trying all accused together when offenses are part of the same transaction, as per Section 223, CrPC, to avoid multiplicity of trials. The court's decision highlights the necessity of considering all relevant charges and circumstances in determining the course of trial proceedings.
|
