ANIL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition challenges the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, dated 10.01.2013 framing a charge against the petitioner, in respect of an offence punishable under Section 202 of the IPC, on account of him and his co -accused Rajesh having intentionally omitted to give information with regard to the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, for which the other co -accused, Bijender, was charged by the same order of the learned trial Court.

(2.) THE facts of the case have a rather checkered history, in as much as, the complainant, Krishan Kumar, resident of village Thilod, initially is stated to have made a statement to the police, on 27.06.2011, at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani, with regard to the death of his brother, to the effect that his brother, though married with children, had a slightly weak mental condition but was a bread earner for his family, who used to go out of the house for many days a time. The statement further reads that he went out from the house on 25.06.2011 and that on the day of the statement (27.06.2011), in the morning, Bijender son of Duli Chand, also resident of Thilod, told them that the dead body of a young person is lying in the well situated in the fields, after which he (Krishan Kumar) and his brother Inderjeet and the Sarpanch of the village, along with other people, went to the well and identified the body to be that of Kamal.

(3.) THE matter having been further probed into and investigated, an offence under Section 202 IPC was added, on account of Rajesh not having disclosed what he allegedly knew, i.e. about the death of Kamal having occurred at the hands of Bijender. Upon Rajesh's arrest on 31.05.2012 and further investigation, (as per the reply filed to the petition on behalf of the respondent -State) the complainant, Krishan Kumar, again had his statement recorded on 17.07.2012, that on 26.06.2011, after Bijender informed his brother -in -law, Rajesh, regarding the murder of Kamal, on his mobile phone, Rajesh, in turn, informed his nephew Anil (the petitioner), of the incident, on the petitioners' mobile phone number (given in the reply).