The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has acquitted three Haryana cops booked for negligence after a prisoner escaped Ambala police custody in 2010, holding that the absence of necessary resources made it unreasonable to blame the officers.
The HC bench of justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that providing facilities for safe custody is the responsibility of the administration, particularly as the accused are not ordinarily required to be handcuffed.
In the case at hand, three cops Baljinder Singh, Darbara Singh and Daljit Singh were booked for negligence attributing to a prisoner escaping from custody. The incident took place in February 2010, when an under-trial, Sandeep Kumar, escaped from the custody of the three cops when he was being taken to court to another accused Satnam Singh.
The incident had resulted in a criminal case against the three cops under Section 223 (escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code, where the punishment could be up to two years. The trial court acquitted them but the appellate court of additional sessions judge, Ambala, held them guilty. It was against this order that the trio were in court, arguing that in the absence of sufficient evidence produced by the prosecution, the court misinterpreted the relevant legal provisions.
On the other hand, the state’s counsel held that for the purposes of Section 223 IPC, intention of the accused is not determinative. Rather, the relevant consideration is whether there was negligence in discharging of official duty by the public servants entrusted with the custody of a person accused of an offence, it was submitted.
{{/usCountry}}On the other hand, the state’s counsel held that for the purposes of Section 223 IPC, intention of the accused is not determinative. Rather, the relevant consideration is whether there was negligence in discharging of official duty by the public servants entrusted with the custody of a person accused of an offence, it was submitted.
{{/usCountry}}The court observed that it can’t overlook the testimony of the investigating officer who had admitted that the cops had cited that the absence of handcuffs was the main reason why the undertrial managed to escape.
It also came to light that no government wireless sets or firearms were provided to the officers responsible for the custody of the accused.
Further, the IO had admitted that the prisoner succeeded in escaping while answering nature’s call, and could not be caught despite subsequent efforts.
“…in a situation where a prisoner pre-plans an escape—by, for instance, requesting to go for urination, it would be unreasonable to expect a police official to act effectively, especially in the absence of a vehicle, arms, or other resources. In such circumstances, any fault must largely be attributed to the police administration, which failed to provide the necessary means for ensuring secure custody or for promptly regaining control over the accused,” the court said while quashing Ambala court judgment.