JUDGMENT :

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2015 and order of sentence dated 13.02.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala (Appellate Court), whereby judgment of acquittal dated 22.08.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ambala (trial Court) was set aside and consequently, petitioners namely Baljinder Singh, Darbara Singh and Daljit Singh, were convicted for committing the offence under Section 223 of IPC.

2. All the three petitioners (accused) were alleged to have been deputed to produce Sandeep Kumar before the Court of Sh. A.S. Narang, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, in connection with FIR No.237 dated 23.07.2007, registered under Sections 307/120-B IPC at Police Station Ambala City.

At about 6:00 p.m., information was received telephonically that while the police party, along with under-trial prisoners namely Sandeep Kumar and Satnam Singh, was boarding a bus, Sandeep Kumar managed to free himself from custody and escape.

3. Consequently, a separate FIR was registered, and all the three police officials were charge-sheeted to face trial under Section 223 of the IPC.

4. However, trial Court, while acquitting the accused, recorded the following findings:-

“10. I find sufficient force in the contentions raised by the LD. defense Counsel. It is seen that the undertrial and co-accused Sandeep who had allegedly run away from Police custody was not handcuffed and therefore, he might have managed to free his hand from the police officials holding him while going towards the bus stop. The main thing required to be proved to hold the accused guilty is an intentional act on their part to enable the undertrial Sandeep to flee while being in custody. The prosecution has however, failed to prove such an intentional act on the part of the accused. Sometimes, the under trial prisoners are so clever that their own intention to away from the clutches of the guards cannot be assumed or predicted and all this happens in the spur of a moment. No official vehicle and weapons where provided to the accused police officials for the purpose of producing the undertrials including Sandeep in the court at Ambala. Further, PW2 Ishwar Singh who had investigated the matter during his cross-examination deposed that he had enquired about the occurrence and one shop keeper namely Jaspal had informed him that the undertrial prisoner Sandeep had managed to ran away while urinating and could not be thereafter apprehended by the Police officials despite many efforts made by them. The under trial/co-accused Sandeep has already confessed his guilt and was sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him from 03-06-2010 to 15-02-2011 vide judgement dated 15-02-2011.

11. The prosecution evidence is clearly unreliable and in any case, inadequate to establish the charges leveled against the accused. There is no evidence direct or circumstantial, in support of the charges leveled against the accused in the charge sheet.”

5. The prosecution preferred an appeal, pursuant to which the judgment of acquittal was reversed by the Appellate Court, primarily relying upon the findings of the investigation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, in the absence of sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Appellate Court misinterpreted the relevant legal provisions. It was argued that the Court erroneously presumed that, in all circumstances, it was the duty of the accused persons to exercise an extraordinary degree of vigilance. Consequently, the escape of accused Sandeep from custody was attributed to sheer negligence on the part of the petitioners, thereby attracting punishment under Section 223 of the IPC.

7. Counsel further submitted that evidence led by the prosecution was not adequately appreciated or discussed by the Appellate Court from the proper legal perspective. It was