Back
1957 Supreme(Mad) 81
MADRAS HIGH COURT
SOMASUNDARAM
In re Retta Koravan
Versus
.
Criminal Revn. Nos. 1045 of 1956 and Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 979 of 1956
Decided On : 25 March, 1957
R. Santanam and T.S. Arunachalam, for Petitioners; V.V. Radhakrishnan for Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Headnote:
Escape from Lawful Custody - Criminal Law - The court discussed the legal provision of escape from lawful custody under Section 224 IPC and the interpretation of the term 'intentionally' in the context of forcible removal. The decision in King Emperor v. Lachhu Kamara was cited to support the interpretation that forcible removal does not constitute intentional escape from custody.
Fact of the Case:
Accused 1 and 2 were convicted under Section 224 IPC for an offence related to a prohibition raid. Accused 3, 5, and 6 were convicted under Sections 147 and 225 IPC for unruly behavior and deterring public servants from discharging their duties.
Finding of the Court:
The Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of accused 3, 5, and 6 under Section 147 IPC but confirmed the convictions of accused 1 and 2 under Section 224 IPC and of accused 3, 5, and 6 under Section 225 IPC.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the term 'intentionally' in the context of escape from lawful custody and the unruly behavior of accused 3, 5, and 6 in deterring public servants from discharging their duties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the interpretation that forcible removal does not constitute intentional escape from custody, leading to the acquittal of accused 1 and 2 under Section 224 IPC. The court also emphasized the severity of the offense of deterring public servants from discharging their duties, leading to the confirmation of the convictions and sentences of accused 3, 5, and 6 under Section 225 IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of accused 1 and 2 under Section 224 IPC were set aside, and they were acquitted. The convictions and sentences of accused 3, 5, and 6 under Section 225 IPC were confirmed, and the petition was dismissed for accused 3, 5, and 6.
ORDER :- Accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are petitioners. Accused 1 and 2 were convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate (II), Madurai, for an offence under S. 224 IPC and each of them was sentenced to R.I. for one year. Accused 3, 5 and 6 were convicted under Ss. 147 and 225 IPC and each of them was sentenced to RI for one year under each count, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal the Sessions Judge of Madurai set aside the conviction and sentence of accused 3, 5 and 6 under S. 147 IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentences of accused 1 and 2 under S. 224 IPC and of accused 3, 5 and 6 under S. 225 IPC.
2. In connection with a prohibition raid, accused 1 and 2 were arrested, handcuffed and taken by the police. Two other Koravars also were handcuffed and taken by the police. While those persons were being taken to the police station, on the way accused 3 to 6 and some others came in a body and demanded the release of accused 1 and 2 and the other two Koravars. The police refused to release them. Thereupon the police party was stoned by accused 3 to 6 and others and accused 1 and 2 were forcibly taken away. But their attempt to take away the other two Koravars failed. There is no doubt that accused 3 to 6 along with others stoned the police officers, caused injuries to them and rescued accused 1 and 2 and also threatened to do harm to the police officers. So far as accused 1 and 2 are concerned, there is no evidence that they themselves voluntarily escaped from the custody of the police. They were forcibly taken away by accused 3 to 6 and others. In these circumstances, as pointed out by the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court in a Bench decision consisting of himself and Jagannadha Das, J., King Emperor v. Lachhu Kamara, AIR 1950 Orissa 62 (A) it would amount to escape from lawful custody. They observed :
"If he was forcibly snatched away from the custody, it cannot be said he intentionally escaped from the custody. The key word in Sec. 224 is "intentionally".
This decision will apply so far as accused 1 and 2 are concerned, so the conviction and sentence under S. 224 IPC in respect of accused 1 and 2 are set aside and they are acquitted.
3. So far as accused 3, 5 and 6 are concerned, they behaved not only in an unruly manner but also in a manner to deter public servants from discharging their duties. Ah offence of this kind must be severely dealt with. I therefore confirm their convictions and sentences under S. 225 IPO. The petition so far as accused 3, 5 and 6 are concerned is dismissed, while in respect of accused 1 and 2 is allowed.
Order accordingly.
