Conviction under S. 225 IPC affirmed; knowledge of arrest not required for penal liability.

1. This Criminal revision by Bibhashini Dutta and Golak Chandra Dutta is directed against the judgment dated 30th of September by which the Sessions Judge, Tripura, rejected the appeal of the petitioners against their conviction under S. 225, Penal Code . Golak Chandra Dutta had, in addition, been sentenced under S. 323, Penal Code . Each of the convicts was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 on the charge under S. 225, Penal Code or to suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment. Golak Chandra was fined Rs. 50 under S. 323, Penal Code or in default to suffer 15 days' rigorous imprisonment.

2. The story of the prosecution, in brief was that P. W. 3 Shanti Goswami informed the complainant Pabitra Kumar Das, P. W. 1, her neighbour at Abhoynagar, at about 7.30 p.m. on 16-10-1960, that she heard the sound of some commotion inside his dwelling hut. Pabitra Kumar took a lantern in his hand from the kitchen, where he was then taking meals, and proceeded in the direction of his dwelling hut. When he reached the verandah of that hut, he saw Nitu Dutta, the son of convict Bibhashini Dutta, coming out of the hut with a shirt of his (Pabitra Kumar's) in his hand. On seeing Pabitra Kumar, Nitu Dutta threw the shirt on the floor and made an attempt to escape. However, Pabitra Kumar succeeded in apprehending him and then raised an alarm. Harihar Goswami P. W. 2 happened to reach there and so helped Pabitra Kumar in keeping Nitu Dutta under custody. Instantly a large number of persons also appeared on the scene.
When Pabitra Kumar and Harihar Goswami were taking Nitu Dutta, a short while after, to the police station and happened to pass close to the house of Nitu Dutta, which fell on their way, the latter's mother Bibhashini Dutta and his uncle Golak Dutta forcibly rescued him from the custody of Pabitra Kumar. Golak Chandra occasioned injuries on the head of Pabitra Kumar with the object of rescuing Nitu Dutta from the latter's custody. Pabitra then lodged the complaint Ext. P - 1 at the police station and in course of time Nitu Dutta, Bibhashini Dutta and Golak Chandra were hauled up. Nitu Dutta, however, absconded during an early stage of the case and so the case against Bibhashini Dutta and Golak Chandra alone remained to be tried. They were ultimately convicted and sentenced in the manner and to the extent indicated above.

3. Shri R. Ghosh, appearing for the petitioners, has not challenged the conviction of Bihhashini Dutta. Qua her, the only prayer made is that she should be warned under S. 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of being punished by a formal sentence. The ground urged in support of that submission is that when she saw her son being taken to the police station she could not control the mother's impulse in her to save her child and so took steps to secure his release. If she could not control her impulse and took the law into her own hands, she must pay the penalty. It is to be emphasised that it is for the reason of her impulsive action that Nitu Dutta has remained a fugitive from justice thus far. In a case falling under S. 225. I. P. C. I consider it wrong in principle to take recourse to the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in a Territory where the law and order situation is already causing headache to the authorities. Hence I, reject the petition on behalf of Bibhashini Dutta.

4. Respecting the other petitioner Golak Chandra, Shri R. Ghosh urges that his conviction on either of the two charges is not justified by the evidence on record. At the same time Shri Ghosh concedes that while sitting in revision it is not open to this Court to re - assess the evidence for adjudging the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact reached by the two Courts below. Nevertheless, Shri Ghosh invites my attention to the statement