Jimirm LaL S/o Mum Ram. Aged aimut 35 yeam, R/o Mahakakurdh, W3 Utai. Tahsil and Diatrict Durg. (:‘rmat‘tisgarh. ’ Ewug f Ekate of Chlhattisgam. W;m1§§§ ME: a . m'uagwan Singh, Sm/o Budhram, aged amm 41 yeamx RIG Qr. No. WW13/202. Chhawm Parisar, Durg at prx-asiiant reading at ViiiagawKhaira, 1.7. and Tahw Kata, mamct BHaspur {£2.64 w ‘. ‘ Ekanzus mate: cf Chhattisgarh. Actimg through F’v Station Mohan Nagar, Distt. Eetitiorggll Appiicamg Non'aklmi‘iant ‘ ii mg. u ‘ Qrimiaal Rgxigmg gggm %mm§§7&§1 Qf ma (Eggg Q: Cm‘miml . 1 L, Eww Shri N.S.Dhurandhar, : caunael f6: the applicant (CrRav. No. 58/2006) ounsel for the N. ‘- applicant Shri Sushi] (CrRev. Dubey. No,1 Govamman’t 36/2006) #‘civocate with Siim'i PRPatankar, P.L. for Shri K.A.Ansan, $eniar Advocate with Shri A.3.Arxsari. c the $tate. 5 RQER (Mm Am i May,2w§§j This order shaii govem i; :hnmal Revision No. 538/2006 by Consitabie Jhui‘nuk Lai :Yadav and Ci‘iihinal Reviaiicn N0.136/2006V by W\ /"/// , Bhagwan Singh. L 3c1‘w Q x ‘ 2. With the consent of the patties. both Criminal Revision No‘ 58/2006 & Criminal Revision No.‘13v6/2006 were heard finally at the stage 'vTof admission. Cl a. it is not in diapuie that Constable Jhumuk Lal Yadav No 658 and Constable Bhagwan Singl \lo 792 were deputed by Police Station Mohan Nagar to produce the accused Raikumar and N Harish before the Court of ' 8m Additional Sesswns Judqo Jabalpur In custody As they roached near Rallwgy station Duig aociixad Raikumgtr and N Harish escaped from their ”ustody by breaking the ouu The matter was ieported immediately by. Constable Jhumuk Lax and Chenwan Singh at Government Railway Police Station. Durg. Def’iati Nail/sh! was recorded at G.R.P. Durg and investigation commenoed. Both the oetitionere were sent for medical examination. Dr. A.S. Gupta, who examined the petitioners. opined that Conetable Jhumuk Lal had consumed alcohol but was not intoxicated and Constable Bhagwari$inghhad eonsumed alcohol and was also under intoxication. 4:: Prosecution under Section 225A of the IP C was launched against the petitioners along With other co-aocused namely Arvind Asif Raikumar and Vinod Bihari The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Durg vrde Judgment dated 04 08 20m in Criminal Case No 1461/2002 conVicted both I the petitioners under Section at m of the LRC. and eentenced to rigorous‘ imprisonment for one month and to a tine of Re.50/— each. 5. Being aggrieved petitioner Jhumuk Lal Yadav preferred Ciiminal h Appeal No 305/2005 and the petitioner Bhagwan Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 313/2005 before the rim Additional Seeeions Judge, Durg. The learned 4‘“ Additional $essione Judge. Durg by judgment dated 22.1 ‘l .2005 gr /_, _ K \ 77 L1 _“ r J" @ affirmed the conviction of the‘petitioners under Section 225A of the l.P,C. but reducedithe substantivelxzentance to impriscnment till rising of tha Court. It is this judgment whinh is under chanenge in this criminal reviasion. 6. i have heard Shri KAI izhmiri, married Senior Counsel appearing for Bhagwan Singh and Shri‘NS‘whurandhar, learned counsel appearing far Jhumuk Lal,Yadav and also 8nri‘8ushn Dubey. learned Government Advocate. l have also perused the record. V? 7. Ordinarily. .this Court, whim exercising revieienai jurisdiction. weuld not interfere with a conourrent finding of fact reached on appreciation of evidence by‘ihe triaiCouri and affirmed by the lower appellate Court, but this is one of those exceptienal cases where l mid that several important aspects have been overlooked by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. which has resulted in miscarriage of justice calling for interference by this Court. a 8. Both the Courts beiowe‘iu not consider that the prosecution did not examine any eye witness who sew the escape of the accused Rajkumar and N. Harish from the custody of Constables Jhumuk Lal Yadav and Bhagwan Singh. Both the Courts below have overlooked the material fact that investigating Officer Revintira Upadhyay P.W.9 admitted in paragraph 5 that the Dehatl Nalr'shi wae recorded at GRP. Burg, which had jurisdiction over the place oi occurrence, on 31 i .1997 and the same was not produced in Court. This; Hermit Nalishi would have contained the report lodged by the petitionere eraoiaining the manner in which the accused ”Raikumar and N. Harish succeeded in escaping from their custody. No explanation is forthcoming to snow why this report was suppressed which creates a serious dent in the paooecution case and renders it doubtful. oth stated that despite their being vary vigilant both Rajkuma broke tho belt and managed to esoane. Both Courio aiao ignored that no explanation was otfered for not aeizing the b substantiated the; explanation ofrorecl by thopetiiioners. No .witnes saw the escapo of Rajkumar lanai N.‘ Harlsh ‘Vwas examined by tho prosecution. The. testimony of Phrnerijit Singh ChaWla P.W.1, who carried the petitioners with Raikumar and N. Harlsh to the Railway Stati ‘ autorikshaw, is comp‘etely sikznt on this point. 9. Section 2125A ofthe LRC. is as under:-’ "225A. Omissionrto apprehend. or sufferance of escape, on provided Ton—Whoever, being a public servant lagally boundVas such 4 a part of public servant, m cases not otherwise, public servant to apprahénd, or to keep in confinement, any z person in any caoe not provided for in section 221, section 222 ' or section 223, or in any other law for the time being in force, omits to [apprehend that pereon or suffers him to ”ponfmement, Shaii be puriisa'hed— (a) if: he does eo intentionally, with imprisonment of either description for a tern! which may extend to three years, or with fine. or with both; and (b) if he does so negiigently, with simple imprisonment tor a term which they extend to two yeare, or with tine. or with both. According to P. Ramanatha Aiyar‘s The haw Lexicon (1 99 (The Encyclopaedic Law Dictio’naiy), the wordv’“5ufier Sermit or t0 admit. would tharefore mean “to faciiimte‘. i7 ¢ escape from 7F“ Edition) “ means’to aiiow or to in the context of'the present case, the word “suffer" the petitioners have in iheir statement under Séction 313 Cr.P.C. have r and N. Harish roken bait which Would have @ ‘ 10. in orger to constitute an offence underiSectian 225A of the I.P.C. the - prosecution? is required to estabiéash‘that the public servant being legally - baund to keep in confinement any parson facilitated the escape of such person from confinement bydoing any negligent act. in the present case. the prosecution alleged that the negligent act of the petitioner in facilitating the escape of the accu ed was chat they were heavtly drunk However the oral evrdence adduced by the prosecution tune counter to it and medical evidence was also not adduced to substantiate this fact. Shiv Kumar Sinha P.W.2 has Categorically etated in paragraph 2 of his cross-examination that while‘he was taking Constabie Bhagwan Singh for medical examination, he found that Conetable Bhagwan $ingh was in his eeneee and was not drunk. Similagly. Head Constable tithuneahwarnath Pandey PW6 has aleo admitted in cross-examination that Constable Jhumuk Lal and Bhagwan Srngh had promptly Informed at the Poirce Station regarding escape of accused Rajkumar and N Harrsh by breaking the belt He has specmcalty .7 stated that Constable Jhumuk Lal had not consumed liquor. Thus, the prosecution led no materiai to establish that both the petitioners were negligent and had facilitated the escape of the accused persons at the time Alcbb of occurrence There Is thus no reason to aeeeetthe explanation of the petitioners in their examination under Section 313 Cr P C that despite their r being vrgrlant Rajkumar and hi Hansh had managed to escape by breaking the belt t it. in this view of the matter. l am of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have failed to consider that-the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients necessaryto constitute the offence undet’ Section 225A of the i.P.C. i am therefore of the considered opinion that it is .;;.,.._A. t . a m case in which intecferance is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. in the resuit both the Grin inai revisions are ailowed The impugned judgment dated 22 11 2006 paswd by 4’“ Additionai Sewons Judge Durg and the judgment dated 04 08 2005 pa5sed by the Additionai Chief Judicial trate, Durg are set aside. Thz; petitioners ~ Constable Jhumuk Lai and Bhagwan Singh are acqu'i'iixNi ofihe charge under Section 225A of the 12‘ Magis AV‘Wii#l LP'C‘ "‘‘ ‘ h (if n i Duip Raosaheb 5di- Deshmukh i udg i Tl e