The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the escape from jail custody and the responsibility of the jail authorities, as well as the possibility of interference by higher courts in case of a perverse view by the lower court.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30-3-1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No. 288/1998 acquitting accused/respondent No. 1 of the charge under Section 224 and accused/respondent No.2 of the charge under Section 223, IPC.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 20-7-1991 respondent No.1 Suresh Singh was an under-trial prisoner for the offences under Sections 302, 364, 201, 397 and 398, IPC and as many as 27 cases were pending against him under various sections. On 20-7-1991 respondent No. 1 escaped from the District Jail Durg, a written report Ex. P-2 was prepared by Jail Superintendent and handed over to Police Station, Durg by Jail Guard namely Bhagwan Singh (PW-2) on that day itself and on 21-7-1991 F.I.R. Ex. P-1 was registered against him under Section 224, IPC. After investigation, charge- sheet was filed against respondent No. 1 Suresh Singh, respondent No.2 Puranlal and Jailor T. B. Singh showing Puranlal and T. B. Singh as absconders. From the record, it appears that on subsequent dates Puranlal and T. B. Singh surrendered before the Court and on 23-7-1992, T. B. Singh was discharged by the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court framed charge against respondent No.1 Suresh Singh under Section 224 and against jail guard Puranlal under Section 223, IPC.

3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties, the Court below has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them. Hence, this appeal against acquittal.

5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that the Court below has erred in law in acquitting the respondent/accused. He submits that the witnesses have categorically stated that on 20-7-1991 when in the evening roll call was made, respondent No.1 was found missing and the matter was immediately reported to the higher authorities. He submits that the fact of missing of respondent No.1 is clear from article B1 and C1 which are the relevant pages of lock-up register dated 20-7-1991 and the register of under trial prisoner Suresh Singh. State counsel further submits that though no document has been filed by the prosecution regarding re-arrest of respondent No.1, from articles B1 and C1, it is clear that respondent No.1 escaped from the jail and thus he is liable to be convicted under Section 224, IPC. He submits that at the relevant time respondent No. 2 Puranlal was a jail guard and assigned the duty of guarding the cell where respondent No.1 Suresh Singh was kept and thus he is equally responsible for facilitating the escape of respondent No.1 and that being so he too is liable to be convicted under Section 223, IPC. He submits that the record in his possession as well as the jail record including the register of under trial prisoners dated 11-10-1991 shows the re-arrest of respondent No.1 and his lodgment in jail on that day but unfortunately this document has not been filed and proved by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the authorities. He however admits that even in the absence of document of re-arest of respondent No.1, it is apparent from articles B1 and C1 that on 20-7-1991, respondent No.1 escaped from jail.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No.1/accused submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that on 20-7-1991 respondent No.1 escaped from jail custody. He submits that unless a document is filed and proved showing re-arrest and re-admission of respondent No.1, it cannot be presumed that he escaped from jail on that day. In respect of respondent No.2 Puranlal it is submitted by Shri Somkant Verma counsel appearing for him that there is no evidence available on record that respondent No.2 facilitated the escape of