The prosecution must prove lawful apprehension or arrest in connection with a case before applying section 224 of the IPC, and establish voluntary hurt to deter a public servant from carrying out his duty for section 332.

JUDGMENT

1. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27-05-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 6(1) of 2005 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 04-01-2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in G.R. 525 of 2003 convicting the accused of having committed offences punishable under sections 224 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year under each of the two counts. Both the sentences were directed to run consecutively.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that the petitioner was accused in a criminal case and was arrested in connection with the said case lodged at Police Station Srinagar. According to the prosecution, the accused fell ill and was got admitted in the G.B. Hospital for his treatment. The prosecution story is that the accused while in custody tried to escape from the hospital and in this process, a scuffle took place in between him and two policemen. The accused allegedly caused injuries to the policemen and, therefore, he is guilty of committing the two offences.

3. Normally, this Court is very reluctant to interfere in matters in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Court does not normally interfere in pure finding of fact. However, the Court would be abdicating its functions if an innocent person is sent behind bars even when no case is proved against him. The counsel for the petitioner did not appear and, therefore, this Court had requested Ms. Paramita Sen to assist the Court as amicus curiae. She has raised three legal arguments. Her first submission is that to prove an offence punishable under section 224 of the IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused has offered resistance or illegal obstruction to his lawful apprehension for any offence with which he is charged or for which he has been convicted. She, therefore, submits that the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was charged of having committed an offence in some case and only thereafter will section 224 come into play.

4. As far as the present case is concerned, there is not an iota of evidence as to why the accused had been arrested or what was the case against him. PW-1, Sanjoy Chowdhury, Nayek of the Tripura Police, was the person allegedly In-charge of the party which was to guard the accused. He has stated that Prabhat Debbarma was arrested by Srinagar Police in connection with a criminal case. Thereafter, Prabhat Debbarma was admitted to G.B. Hospital, Agartala in injured condition. According to this witness, he along with three constables was deputed to guard the prisoner Prabhat Debbarma in G.B. Hospital, Agartala. This witness was not present at the time when the alleged occurrence took place. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he could not say in connection with which number of criminal case of Srinagar Police Station the accused was arrested. He could not even say what was the offence with which the accused was charged. This witness who is alleged to be the Head of the police party guarding the accused could not even inform the Court the disease for which the accused was admitted in hospital. He could not state the FIR number of the case in which the accused was arrested. Therefore, there is virtually no evidence whatsoever that the accused had been lawfully arrested. The question of applying section 224 of the IPC will come into play only after it is proved that the accused is lawfully apprehended or arrested in connection with a case registered against him and he has resisted his apprehension or arrest or has tried to escape from custody. The onus was on the prosecution to prove the facts of the case in which the accused had been arrested. This having not been done, no offence under section 224 of the IPC is proved.

5. In this regard, it would also be