Punjab and Haryana High Court clears cops convicted for prisoner escape, blames state

The court contended that 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.

Justice Sanjay Vashistha heard the matter on April 2.

The order emphasised that providing such facilities is the responsibility of the administration, particularly as the accused were not required to be handcuffed in accordance with existing instructions.

Case of prisoner escape and conviction of police officials

The petitioners, Baljinder Singh, Darbara Singh, and Daljit Singh, were deputed to produce an undertrial prisoner before the court in Ambala in connection with an attempt-to-murder charge. While boarding the bus, the prisoner managed to free himself from custody and escape at around 6 pm.

Consequently, a separate FIR was registered, and all three police officials were charge-sheeted to face trial under Section 223 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalised public servants for negligently allowing a prisoner to escape from confinement. However, in 2014, the trial court acquitted the accused police officials, noting that there was no intentional act on the part of the police officials.

The state challenged this order before the appellate court, where, in 2015, it set aside the acquittal order of the trial court, and the petitioners were convicted.

Undertrial prisoners are so clever: Trial court

Earlier, while acquitting the police officials, the trial court observed that the main thing required to be proved to hold the accused guilty is an intentional act on their part to enable the undertrial prisoner to flee while being in custody, but the prosecutionf ailed to prove such an intentional act.

Sometimes, the undertrial prisoners are so clever that their own intention to evade the clutches of the guards cannot be assumed or predicted, and all this happens in the spur of a moment, the trial court remarked.

Highlighting the lack of provided resources from the end of the state, the trial court noted that no official vehicle and weapons were provided to the accused police officials for the purpose of producing the undertrials, including prisoners in the court at Ambala. It also noted that the prisoner managed to run away while urinating.

‘Prisoner succeeded in escaping while urinating’

• The court cannot overlook that one of the witnesses, in his cross-examination, admitted that SI Bhupinder Singh had explained the main reason for the escape of the accused, i.e. that they were not handcuffed.
• It was further admitted that no government wireless sets or firearms were provided to the officers responsible for the custody of the accused.
• It has also come on record from the statement of one of the witnesses that the prisoner succeeded in escaping while urinating and could not be apprehended despite subsequent efforts.
• The prosecution has not led any evidence to show that the accused were provided with an official vehicle, arms, or ammunition to take necessary preventive measures in the event of an escape attempt.

• It is also on record that the prisoner was involved in a case under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC and, upon confessing his guilt, was convicted vide judgment in 2011, with the sentence taking into account the period already served by him from June 2010 to February 2011.