Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary

   Supreme Court of India 25 Sep 2024 Persuasive (Supreme Court - Split Opinion) Reportable 2024 INSC 734

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 202, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When a dead body is recovered and subjected to autopsy and necrotomic evidence is adduced to establish cause of death, failure to prove that the dead body is of the person allegedly murdered by the accused must have fatal and adverse consequence on the prosecution case. The case of an untraceable dead body is different from a case where the dead body is traced and evidence is adduced to prove the identity of the deceased. In the latter case, upon failure to prove identity, the prosecution cannot be permitted to advance a case that the dead body is untraceable. However, this principle applies only when the prosecution itself has put forth the case that the dead body was recovered. In such circumstances, when once identification of the dead body as that of the alleged victim based on fingerprint test is reversed by the High Court, in the absence of appeal by the State or the victim, it cannot be said that the dead body is that of the alleged victim, either for holding the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 IPC. (Justice C.T. Ravikumar's view, which represents the majority position on this specific issue)

   On this section: Destruction of evidence; conviction set aside

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. The State of Maharashtra vs Pappu Suresh Salve@ Sunil Bharat Jadhav

   High Court 13 Apr 2010 Persuasive (High Court)

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 202, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and leave no reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and require independent reliable corroboration. An accused cannot be examined as a prosecution witness without following the procedure prescribed in sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution must ensure that a guilty person does not escape the law, but also that an innocent person is not held guilty. A fair and transparent trial is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. When scientific evidence like DNA testing is available and necessary to establish identity of a decomposed body, failure to conduct such test creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution case. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof.

   On this section: Fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction for offence punishable with life imprisonment or death; applied to Accused No. 2

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.