In Re: Retta Koravan and Others

Somasundaram, J.—Accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are petitioners. Accused 1 and 2 were convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate (II).

Madural for an offence u/s 224 IPC and each of them , was sentenced to R.I. for one year. Accused 3, 5 and 6 were convicted under Sections

147 and 225 IPC and each of them was sentenced to RI for one year under each count, the sentences to run concurrently . On appeal the

Sessions Judge of Madurai set - aside the conviction and sentence of accused 3, 5 and 6 u/s 147 IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentences

of accused 1 and 2 u/s 224 IPC and of accused 3, 5 and 6 u/s 225 IPC.

In connection with a prohibition raid, accused 1 and 2 were arrested, handcuffed and taken by the police. Two other Koravars also were

handcuffed and taken by the police. While those persons were being taken to the police station, on the way accused 3 to 6 and some others came

in a body and demanded the release of accused 1 and a and the other two Koravars. The police refused to release them. Thereupon the police

party was stoned by accused 3 to 6 and others and accused 1 and 2 were forcibly taken away. But their attempt to lake away the other two

Koravavs failed. There is no doubt that accused 3 to 6 along with others stoned the police officers, caused injuries to them and rescued accused 1

and 2 & also threatened to do harm to the police officers. So far as accused land 2 are concerned, there is no evidence that they themselves

voluntarily escaped from the custody of the police. They were forcibly taken away by accused 3 to 6 & others. In these circumstances, as pointed

out by the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court in a King-Emperor Vs. Lachhu Kamara, it would amount to escape from lawful custody. They

observed:

If he was forcibly snatched away from the custody, it cannot be said he intentionally escaped from the custody. The key word in Section 224 is

intentionally"".

This decision will apply so far as accused 1 and 2 are concerned so the conviction and sentence u/s 224 IPC in respect of accused 1 and 2 are set

aside and they are acquitted.

So far as accused 3 ,6 and 6 are concerned, they behaved not only in an unruly manner but also in a manner to deter public servants from

discharging their duties. An offence of this kind must be severely dealt with. I therefore confirm their convictions and sentences u/s 225 IPC. The

petition so far as accused 3, 5 and 6 are concerned is dismissed, while in respect of accused 1 and 2 is allowed.