IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 364/2003 Date of decision: 19. 8. 2010 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Ram Parshad ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant: Mr.. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 224 Indian Penal Code for allegedly escaping from the lawful custody of the Police. The State felt aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court as such the instant appeal has been filed. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - 3. In short the prosecution case can be stated thus. Respondent was arrested in FIR No. 76 of 1994 under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Palampur. The allegation against him appears to be only under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. On 22.8.1994 as he failed to furnish the personal bond, thus remanded to judicial custody. It is alleged that Constable Dev Raj (PW5) and Constable Rajinder (PW7) were taking him to judicial lock-up. When they reached near the Bus Stop at Subhash Chowk, Palampur, he escaped from the custody by jumping over the wall of the Girls School. PW7 Rajinder chased him and apprehended him near Veterinary Hospital. The respondent was again produced before the Judicial Magistrate in this case registered against him under Section 224 Indian Penal Code vide FIR Ext. PW4/A. Police prepared the site plan Ext. PW4/B of the site from where the respondent had absconded. 4. Challan was presented in the court and notice of accusation was put to the - 3 - respondent to which he denied and claimed trial 5. To prove its case prosecution examined its witnesses and respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure. He admitted that he was in the custody but denied having escaped, as alleged. He also alleged that police people used to torture him and it was a false case against him. The learned trial Court did not believe the prosecution version as such he was acquitted, hence this appeal. 6. The learned Assistant Advocate General argued that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is perverse. If the evidence is appreciated in its right perspective, the acquittal can be converted into conviction. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above arguments and have carefully gone through the record. 8. The perusal of jail warrant Ext. PW6/B only shows that the respondent failed to furnish the bail bond to the tune of Rs.2000/- thus, he was remanded to - 4 - judicial custody for 14 days. But it does not reveal to whom the custody of the respondent was entrusted. There is no legal evidence on record to show that the custody of the respondent was entrusted to PW5 LHC Dev Raj and PW7 LHC Rajinder. There is only a photocopy of some order (mark ‘X’) that the respondent was produced under their supervision and was directed to be produced on the next date. But this document has not been proved in accordance with law. 9. Therefore, against the above background, I find no legal evidence that the respondent was in lawful custody. Oral statements of PW5 and PW7 aforesaid cannot be taken as a proof even to infer lawful custody of the respondent. Therefore, this discrepancy, contradiction apart, gives a major blow to the case of the prosecution. 10. For the reason aforesaid, the offence under Section 224 Indian Penal Code is not made out. Therefore, acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered with. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11. The respondent is hereby discharged of his bail bonds entered upon - 5 - at any stage during the proceedings of this case. August 19, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)