[S.224 IPC] Separate Trial Permissible If Accused Escapes From Lawful Custody While Arrested In Another Crime: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by an accused who was convicted by the trial court for running away from the lawful custody of the police under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code.A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the petition filed by Somashekar who was convicted by the trial court on 09.06.2014 and sentenced to suffer rigorous...
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by an accused who was convicted by the trial court for running away from the lawful custody of the police under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the petition filed by Somashekar who was convicted by the trial court on 09.06.2014 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000, the order was upheld by the appellate court.
The court also rejected the contention of the petitioner that under Section 224 of IPC, there cannot be two trials. It said, “No doubt, he was arrested in connection with Crime No.11/2012, but the present Crime No.12/2012 is on account of escape from lawful custody, that too, in front of Pathapalya Police Station when he was arrested and brought and the same is a different incident and not in respect of series of acts so connected together and there cannot be one trial in respect of other incident.”
As per the prosecution case on 09.04.2012, P.W.1-Sadappa filed the complaint, alleging that on 07.04.2012 at about 8.30 p.m, he received credible information that there was galata in front of the house of Krishna at Hosahudya Village.
It was stated that the galata had taken place between two groups near Lakshmi Narayana Temple. When they were pacifying the groups, P.W.11 Srinivasa Murthy, Circle Inspector of Police, P.W.10 Venkatachalapathi, Sub-Inspector of Police of Cheluru Police Station and their staff came to the scene of offence.
All of them, pacified and controlled the situation. P.W.17 arrested the petitioner and one Venkatesh, who was in the house of Krishnappa. He handed over the petitioner and Venkatesh to P.W.1-Sadappa to take them to Pathapalya Police Station, it was added.
Accordingly, P.W.1-Sadappa brought them to Pathapalya Police Station. All of them got down from the jeep and this petitioner pulled P.W.1-Sadappa and escaped from the custody.
It was stated that despite search, the petitioner was not traced. Therefore, on 09.04.2012 at about 7.30 p.m, P.W.1-Sadappa lodged a complaint and based on the complaint, the police registered Crime No.12/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 224 of IPC.
The main contention of the petitioner challenging his conviction was that the trial courts failed to see that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint.
It was stated that both the Courts failed to invoke Section 360 of Cr.P.C. or the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, and as per Section 224 of IPC, when there was no separate crime, the petitioner cannot be arrested.
Finally it was prayed that the court can modify the judgment of conviction and sentence by imposing a fine only.
The prosecution opposed the plea saying material available on record was very clear that the ingredients of the offence under Section 224 of IPC would be invoked, since the petitioner had escaped from lawful custody and sufficient evidence was placed before the Court.
Bench noted the contention that under Section 220 of Cr. P.C, the trial for more than one offence cannot be permitted and the same cannot be accepted as both the incidents are in respect of different crimes i.e., one in respect of cognizable offence at different place and the present crime is registered in view of the fact that the petitioner had escaped from lawful custody from a different place, that too in front of Pathapalya Police Station and charges are also different.
The bench noted that P.Ws.8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 16 have 12 categorically stated that after the incident, this petitioner and co-accused, who were in the house of Krishnappa were arrested and sent them to Pathapalya Police Station in a jeep under escort of P.W.1-Sadappa.
The petitioner was in lawful custody in connection with Crime No.11/2012. When they reached the Police Station at about 1.30 a.m. in the early morning along with this petitioner and other accused, this petitioner ran away pushing P.W.1 and the Investigating Officer deputed other police officials to trace them and their effort went in vain, it was held.
Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that he was not in lawful custody, the court said “An offence under Section 307 of IPC (attempt to murder) and other offences are invoked in respect of the said crime i.e., Crime No.11/2012. Hence, it is clear that on credible information with regard to the galata which had taken place, P.W.1 and P.W.12 went to the spot and apprehended this petitioner and other accused by P.W.17.”
It added that whether all the accused have been acquitted and whether they have been acquitted or convicted is immaterial to consider in this case.
The court also refused to accept the plea to reduce the sentence only to fine and said that the escapism of the petitioner from lawful custody had led the official to face the consequence. Under such circumstances, no lenient view can be taken in favour of the petitioner to reduce the sentence to fine as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner by modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence, it stated.
Accordingly, it dismissed the plea.
Appearance: Advocate Veeranna G Tigadi for Petitioner.
HCGP M Divakar Maddur for Respondent.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
Case Title: Somashekar AND State of Karnataka
Case NO: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.126/2017