Legal provisions regarding Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform under section 202 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform:
“Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”
Image Source: scs-assets.s3.amazonaws.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Section 202 punishes the illegal omission to give information of those who are by some law bound to give information, when such omission is intentional. Sections 39 and 40, CrPC require a person aware of the commission of any offence or of any intention of any person to commit any offence specified in the section to inform forthwith the nearest magistrate or police officer about such commission or intention.
Section 202 does not cast any duty on the criminal to give information regarding a crime committed by him which will incriminate himself. The words ‘whoever’ in Section 202 IPC refers to persons other than the offender?
In order to sustain a conviction under Section 202, it is essential to first establish that a crime has been committed and the accused was aware or at least had reasonable belief that an offence which he is under a legal obligation to report has been committed. The prosecution has to first establish that the main offence has been committed. Thereafter, the prosecution has to produce further proof that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that such an offence had been committed.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Section 202 contemplates that the omission to give information about the commission of the crime by a person should be done intentionally. If the omission to give information is bonafide and not willful, then no offence under Section 202 is made out. Thus, intention is an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 202.
Section 202 has no application where the principal offence has not been established.
The failure on the part of the doctor to give information to the police has been held not to constitute any offence under Section 202.
It would have to be shown that doctors were duty bound to give such information, for example that there was knowledge that in the burning of the lady some offence was involved. Even where this would be so, it would be a separate offence. The doctors cannot be prosecuted jointly with the main accused.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
No sanction is required for a prosecution under Section 202. The offence under Section 202 is non-cognizable, and summons must issue in the first instance. It is bailable but not compoundable and it is triable by any Magistrate and may be tried summarily.