The court affirmed that intentional escape from lawful custody constitutes a serious offence under IPC Section 224, overriding claims of unlawful detention and complaint delays.

ORDER :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. This revision petition is filed praying this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 09.06.2014 passed in C.C.No.135/2013 on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bagepalli and judgment dated 31.12.2016 in Crl.A.No.37/2014 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 09.04.2012, P.W.1-Sadappa filed the complaint which is marked as Ex.P1. In the said complaint at Ex.P1, an allegation is made that on 07.04.2012 at about 8.30 p.m., P.W.1-Sadappa, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Pathapalya Police Station received a credible information that there was galata in front of house of Krishna at Hosahudya Village. P.W.1-Sadappa, P.W.8-Suresh, P.W.11-Jayaram and P.W.13-Seetharam Singh went to the said village. The galata had taken place between two groups near Lakshmi Narayana Temple. When they were pacifying the groups, P.W.11 Srinivasa Murthy, Circle Inspector of Police, P.W.10 Venkatachalapathi, Sub-Inspector of Police of Cheluru Police Station and their staff came to the scene of offence. All of them, pacified and controlled the situation. P.W.17 arrested the petitioner and one Venkatesh, who was in the house of Krishnappa. He handed over the petitioner and Venkatesh to P.W.1-Sadappa to take them to Pathapalya Police Station. Accordingly, P.W.1-Sadappa brought them to Pathapalya Police Station. All of them got down from the jeep and this petitioner pulled P.W.1-Sadappa and escaped from the custody. P.W.7-M.Raju, P.W.3-Natesh and P.W.10-Nagaraj were sent to trace the petitioner, but the same went in vain. Inspite of search, the petitioner was not traced. Therefore, on 09.04.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., P.W.1-Sadappa lodged complaint and based on the complaint, the police have registered Crime No.12/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 224 of IPC.

4. The prosecution mainly examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. However, during the course of cross-examination of P.Ws.5 and 7, confronted the documents of Exs.D1 and D2.

5. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 224 of IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.37/2014 and the First Appellate Court also, on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his argument would vehemently contend that both the Courts have failed to see that at the time of alleged escape, the petitioner was not charged with any offence and also he was not in lawful custody. The Courts below have failed to see that the ingredients of Section 224 of IPC are not attracted or proved the case and failed to properly assess the evidence on record and there were contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 17. Th