Harbouring liability requires proof of both the underlying offence and the accused's knowledge or belief of that fact.

Conviction for harbouring under section 212 IPC requires proof that the person harboured had in fact committed the substantive offence and that the accused knew or had reason to believe that fact. Mere suspicion that the person was an absconder, or that he was being concealed to avoid arrest or inquiry, is insufficient. As the material did not clearly show knowledge of the alleged dacoity or establish that the person harboured was an offender, the conviction could not be sustained and was set aside by the HC.

---

---

Issues: Whether a conviction for harbouring under section 212 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained when there was no clear proof that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the person harboured had actually committed dacoity.

Analysis: Liability under section 212 depends on proof that the person harboured had in fact committed an offence and that the accused knew or had reason to believe that fact. Mere suspicion that the person was an absconder, or that he was being concealed to avoid arrest or inquiry, was insufficient. The circumstances relied on did not conclusively establish the requisite knowledge or belief, and there was no clear evidence that the petitioners knew of the alleged dacoity or that the person harboured was in fact an offender.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 212 could not be supported and was set aside in favour of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence of harbouring under section 212, the prosecution must prove both the commission of the substantive offence by the person harboured and the accused's knowledge or reasonable belief of that fact; harbouring a mere absconder is not enough.

---