Harbouring offender-if a capital offence, if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment
Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with harbouring offender-if a capital offence, if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment. Harbouring offender.--Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment, if a capital offence; The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Harbouring offender.--Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment,
if a capital offence;
if a capital offence;--shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.
if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.-- and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, and not to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
["Offence" in this section includes any act committed at any place out of [India], which, if committed in [India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and every such act shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in [India].]
Exception.-This provision shall not extend to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the offender.
Illustration
A, knowing that B has committed dacoity, knowingly conceals B in order to screen him from legal punishment. Here, as B is liable to [imprisonment for life], A is liable to imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding three years, and is also liable to fine.
Section 212, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 249 Harbouring offender Close, with changes 78%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 2
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.
-
Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where evidence of harboring under Section 212 IPC depends on witness testimony that the escaped prisoner came to and resided at a specific location, and the owner of that location and other witnesses explicitly deny this allegation without contradiction from the prosecution, the harboring charge cannot be sustained even if conspiracy is otherwise proved, as the charge of harboring requires clear positive evidence of the specific act of harboring and cannot rest on mere presumption or conspiracy alone.
On this section: Harboring or concealing person who has committed offence; central issue in this appeal regarding whether witnesses proved accused harbored the escaped prisoners
-
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, conviction is justified when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person, and a complete chain of events is established linking the accused to the crime. Confessional statements made to police, while inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, may be used as source of information to discover facts under Section 27, and such discoveries based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events can support conviction when combined with other credible evidence. In evaluating concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless findings are vitiated by grave error of law or lead to serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Harboring offender - applied to Rajesh Verma for harboring other accused
-
Shiv Kesh Giri @ Lalla vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitnesses, when confessions to police lead to discovery of incriminating materials (weapons, cartridges, stolen items) through Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and when multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence form a complete and unbroken chain of events establishing motive, opportunity, and participation in the crime, the conviction of the accused can be sustained. The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, procedure, or misreading of evidence resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. Minor discrepancies and gaps in eyewitness testimony do not vitiate an otherwise strong and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence when the totality points conclusively to guilt.
On this section: Harboring offender - charged against Rajesh Verma for assisting the escape of other accused
-
Rakesh Anand vs State of up
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, where a complete chain of circumstances is established linking the accused to the commission of the offence, such circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and is as reliable as direct eyewitness evidence. The doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits evidence of facts discovered as a consequence of information given by the accused, notwithstanding that the information itself may constitute a confession barred under Section 25. Appellate courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial courts and confirmed by high courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, error of procedure, misreading of evidence, or would result in serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Applied against Rajesh Verma for harbouring offender and screening him from justice.
-
Oinam Lukhoi Singh vs The State of Manipur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For an accused to be prosecuted under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for harboring a terrorist, there must be: (1) Knowledge that the person is a terrorist; (2) Intention to help the person evade apprehension; and (3) Actual harboring, concealment, or attempt to harbor or conceal. Merely giving a lift to an unknown person without knowledge of their terrorist connections and without any attempt to help them evade apprehension does not constitute the offense. Similarly, for Section 39 of UAPA to apply, the support must be within the meaning of clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Section 39(1) and must be done with the intention to further the activities of a terrorist organization. Confessional statements made to police without the presence of a Magistrate are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot form the basis of prosecution. The confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another accused unless the other evidence adduced by the prosecution is satisfactory and the co-accused's confession is used only as corroborative evidence. When no prima facie case is made out and the proceedings have been pending for an unreasonable period without progress, the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR.
On this section: Sections under which the FIR was originally registered against the petitioner.
-
Daulat Singh @ Bholu Son of Gordhan Singh @ Mangtu vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When similarly situated co-accused in a murder case have been granted bail and the trial is likely to be prolonged, bail may be granted to other accused charged with lesser degrees of involvement (such as harboring or assisting the principal offender) even under serious charges like Section 302 IPC, provided appropriate bail conditions (personal bond and sureties) are imposed to ensure appearance before the court.
On this section: Harboring offenders; the court noted that the case against the petitioners may only travel under this section, suggesting lesser culpability than direct participation in murder
-
Kishna Ram vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where an accused is charged with secondary offences such as harboring or aiding accused persons in a principal crime like murder, and where the charges are triable by magistrate court, bail may be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, even when opposed by the prosecution and complainant, provided appropriate conditions and securities are imposed to ensure the accused's appearance in court and compliance with trial proceedings.
On this section: Harboring offender - charge for giving shelter to persons accused of murder
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… There were eight accused in the said case. Among them, accused 1 to 7 stood indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and the eighth accused stood indicted for the offence punishable under Section 212 of the IPC. After the trial, accused 1 to 7 were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and eighth accused was acquitted of the charge against him. Among accused 1 to 7, accused 2, 3 and 5 were convicted also for offence …
-
… There were eight accused in the said case. Among them, accused 1 to 7 stood indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and the eighth accused stood indicted for the offence punishable under Section 212 of the IPC. After the trial, accused 1 to 7 were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and eighth accused was acquitted of the charge against him. Among accused 1 to 7, accused 2, 3 and 5 were convicted also for offence …
-
… There were eight accused in the said case. Among them, accused 1 to 7 stood indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and the eighth accused stood indicted for the offence punishable under Section 212 of the IPC. After the trial, accused 1 to 7 were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and eighth accused was acquitted of the charge against him. Among accused 1 to 7, accused 2, 3 and 5 were convicted also for offence …
Questions about Section 212
What have the courts held on Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code?
Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer (01 Nov 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Harboring or concealing person who has committed offence; central issue in this appeal regarding whether witnesses proved accused harbored the escaped prisoners. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2015 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 212, section 212 IPC, section 212 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 212 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer (01 Nov 2018).
What should I read with Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 249 (Harbouring offender), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 212, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.