Life convict uses bathroom break to escape: What court said while rejecting his plea

“The liberty of an individual is precious, but liberty obtained otherwise than by due process of law is not liberty in the eye of law. A convict undergoing sentence remains under the command of law until law itself restores his freedom,” the court said on June 1, adding that a convict cannot take advantage of the trust reposed in him by prison authorities and later argue that his escape falls outside the scope of criminal law.

A key issue before Justice L Victoria Gowri was whether the prisoner remained in lawful custody while carrying out work outside the prison compound.

Escape during work assignment

• According to the prosecution, Jeyakumar has been serving a life sentence in Central Prison, Madurai, since November 24, 2016.
• Owing to his good conduct, prison authorities had assigned him duties outside the prison premises.
• On November 29, 2023, the convict was engaged along with two other prisoners in maintenance work at residential quarters occupied by prison officials.
• During the assignment, he allegedly told authorities that he needed to use the bathroom and escaped from custody.
• He remained at large for more than three weeks before being apprehended on December 22, 2023.
• Following the incident, the Karimedu police registered a case and later filed a chargesheet against him under IPC Section 224 before the judicial magistrate’s court.

Convict challenges prosecution

Seeking quashing of the case, the petitioner argued that IPC Section 224 deals primarily with resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension, and that the prosecution had failed to allege either element.

His counsel contended that there was no accusation that he resisted prison officials, used force or obstructed authorities in any manner.

At most, the prosecution’s case suggested that he left the work site while working outside prison walls. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence were not made out, he argued. The petitioner also claimed that the prosecution had been initiated to shield prison authorities from scrutiny for alleged negligence that enabled the escape.

IPC Section 224 has 2 distinct parts: Court

• Rejecting the contention, Justice Gowri held that IPC Section 224 contains two separate and independent limbs.
• The first limb addresses situations where a person intentionally resists or obstructs lawful apprehension.
• The second deals with a person who escapes or attempts to escape from lawful custody.
• The use of the word “or” in the provision makes it clear that both categories are distinct offences.
• The court said that the petitioner’s interpretation would effectively erase the second part of the provision and render the words “escapes or attempts to escape from any custody” meaningless.
• “A penal provision must undoubtedly be strictly construed. But strict construction does not mean that clear words of the statute should be ignored or reduced into redundancy,” the court said.

Custody does not end outside prison walls

• A key issue before the court was whether the prisoner remained in lawful custody while carrying out work outside the prison compound.
• The court answered in the affirmative, emphasising that legal custody is not limited to confinement within prison walls or physical restraints such as handcuffs.
• Justice Gowri noted that prisoners taken outside prisons for work assignments, medical treatment, court appearances or other authorised purposes continue to remain under legal custody unless formally released through lawful procedures.
• Lawful custody is a legal status, the judgment stated, adding that it does not evaporate merely because physical restraint is relaxed for administrative, humanitarian or institutional reasons.
• The court further observed that a convict cannot become a free citizen simply by walking away from a place where he was lawfully taken by prison authorities.

Negligence by officials no defence

Addressing the argument that prison officials may have been negligent, the high court said any such negligence would not absolve the prisoner of liability for escape.

The judgment pointed out that negligence on the part of custodians and criminal liability on the part of a prisoner who escapes are not mutually exclusive concepts. “Both may co-exist,” the court observed, while rejecting the petitioner’s attempt to rely on alleged lapses by prison authorities.

Bhajan Lal principles not applicable

The court also considered the petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, which laid down circumstances in which criminal proceedings may be quashed.

However, the court found that the allegations against the convict, if accepted at face value, clearly disclosed the ingredients of an offence under the second limb of IPC Section 224.

Questions relating to the exact nature of custody or the conduct of prison officials would have to be examined during trial and could not be conclusively decided in a quashing petition.

Trial to proceed

Dismissing the petition, Justice Gowri directed the trial court in Madurai to proceed with the criminal case in accordance with the law without being influenced by observations made in the high court’s order.

The ruling clarifies that escape from lawful custody is a standalone offence under criminal law and does not require proof of resistance, violence or obstruction.

It also underscores a broader principle that while liberty remains a cherished constitutional value, it can only be restored through legal processes, not through self-help by those lawfully detained.