SHRIDHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Piar Singh, son of the petitioner, committed suicide on 11th Jeth 2009 B. by shooting himself with the gun belonging to one Jai Kishan in the field of one Baldev near village Seri. The dead body was cremated the next day without giving information to the police. In due course, a complaint under Sections 176 and 202, I. P. C., was filed by S. H. O. Kihar against six persons, including the petitioner and Jai Kishan. The trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner and Jai Kishan under Section 202, I. P. C., and acquitted the remaining accused persons. Shridhar (the petitioner) filed an appeal, which was heard and disposed of by the learned District Magistrate of Chamba. The learned District Magistrate altered the conviction of the petitioner from one under Section 202, I. P. C., to one under Section 176, I. P. C., but maintained the sentence. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained, because the ingredients of an offence under Section 176, I. P. C., have not been established. Before a person can be convicted under Section 176 I. P. C., the prosecution are bound to prove (a) that the accused person was legally bound to furnish a certain information to a public servant and (b) that he Intentionally omitted to give such in? formation. The trial Magistrate has expressed his opinion that it was the primary duty of the petitioner to inform the police before cremating the dead body. He has not quoted the law, which cast a duty on the petitioner to inform the police accordingly. The learned District Magistrate, apparently, realized this difficulty, because he permitted additional evidence under Section 428, Or. P. C., to be produced on the point, whether or not, the petitioner was a land owner. He found that the petitioner owns land in village Gaglu, which is at a distance of about one mile from village Seri in the proximity of which the suicide was committed. Thereupon, the learned District Magistrate proceeds to observe as follows:

(3.) The result is: I allow this revision petition, and set aside the conviction of the petitioner. He is acquitted. Fine, if realized, from the petitioner, must be refunded without delay.