Rajasthan High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed by the accused against the conviction under Section 223 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for the escape of undertrial prisoners, the Single Judge Bench of Farjand Ali, J. holding that criminal negligence under 223 of the IPC requires a substantial deviation from the standard of care expected out of reasonable person and the actions of the accused were driven by humanitarian concerns and not with intent or recklessness to facilitate escape, set aside the conviction and sentence order against the accused.
Background
The accused, a police constable, was on guard and wireless communication duty at the Police Station. On the night of 20-06-1994 and 21-06-1994, two under-trial prisoners were in lawful custody, handcuffed and shackled to a table in the SHO’s office due to the lack of a lock-up facility. During a sudden power outage in peak summer, the prisoners, suffering from suffocation and heat, cried for relief. Out of humanitarian concern, the accused moved them outside to an open area, securing their handcuffs to a pillar. However, the prisoners escaped.
Consequently, the accused was charged under Section 223 IPC and was convicted along with a fine of Rs. 2,000. This conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Court via order dated 23-06-2006. Hence, the accused had filed the present revision petition against the said order.
Analysis vis-à-vis the requirement of criminal negligence under Section 223 IPC
The Court noted that a conviction under Section 223 IPC required proof of “criminal negligence”, which implies a gross and culpable failure to exercise the degree of care which an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. Not every error in judgment, lapse, or inadvertent act constitutes criminal negligence.
The Court referred to Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court had observed that criminal negligence involves a legal duty, reckless disregard of foreseeable consequences, and an act/omission creating an obvious and serious, foreseeable, and preventable risk.
The Court opined that,
“the jurisprudential distinction between civil and criminal negligence lies primarily in the presence of mens rea in the latter — an element of moral blameworthiness or at the very least, a recklessly indifferent attitude towards the duty imposed by law. In the case of a police official tasked with dual and simultaneous responsibilities — such as guarding under-trial prisoners while also attending to wireless operations in emergency-like conditions — the expectations of flawless, uninterrupted supervision must be weighed against the practical limitations of manpower and infrastructure. Criminal negligence cannot be predicated on errors of judgment or bona fide acts taken under emergent circumstances, particularly when driven by humanitarian considerations and lacking any element of intent or recklessness. Further, the application of criminal law must be tempered with a contextual and fact-sensitive inquiry: whether the accused acted in a manner that an ordinarily prudent officer, faced with similar constraints, would regard as palpably indefensible.”
Applying the aforementioned principles to the facts of the case, the Court observed that:
- The accused’s dual duties as guard and wireless operator compromised his uninterrupted physical supervision.
- Due to a lack of a lock-up facility, the prisoners were handcuffed and tethered inside the SHO’s office.
- The accused’s step of relocation of prisoners was a pragmatic and compassionate response to their distress.
- The escape occurred despite continued restraints and was not directly caused by grossly negligent conduct on the part of the accused.
-
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court, holding that criminal negligence involves a substantial deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person, and mere errors in judgment or omissions in the face of difficult circumstances do not constitute such culpability, quashed and set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused.
[Mushtaq Ali v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Revision Petition No. 1106/2006, decided on 17-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Manish Pitaliya
For Respondents: S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
