IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 236 of 2005 Ramesh Singh Chilwal @ Bambaya S/o Chandra Singh R/o Village Gairkhet, Patti Malla Danpur, The. Kapkotot, District Bageshwar. ...…………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal ...…………. Respondent Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Asstt. Govt. Advocate with Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2005, whereby said court has affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court, against the revisionist. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11.09.1996, two police constables, namely Constable A.P. 241 Babu Khan and Constable 363 Dhanpal Singh took accused / revisionist Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambaya, at 09.50 A.M., from Sub-jail Haldwani to make him to attend court in connection with a trial in which he was under detention. However, he did not return back to the jail by the evening, nor he returned on 12.09.1996. He could be rearrested on 13.09.1996, and a first information report (Ext. A –1) was lodged in respect of offences punishable under Section 224, 120-B of I.P.C. against the accused / revisionist Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambaya and some other accused, namely Hayat Singh, Vikram Singh, Prakash Chand Arya, Constable Dhanpal Singh and Constable Babu Khan. 4) After investigation charge sheet was filed against Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambaya, in respect of offences punishable under Section 224, 120-B of I.P.C. (A separate charge sheet was filed against accused Hayat Singh, Vikram Singh and Prakash Ram Arya, in respect of offences punishable under Section 225, 120-B of I.P.C. And, third charge sheet was filed against Constable Babu Khan and Constable Dhanpal Singh, in respect of offences punishable under Section 222, 223, 120-B of I.P.C., and one relating to Section 29 of the Police Act). The Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, conducted the trial and convicted the accused / revisionist Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambaya under Section 3 224 of I.P.C. He sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. (Other accused Hayat Singh, Prakash Chand Arya and Vikram Singh were also convicted by the Magistrate). Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2005 was preferred by the accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambaya (present revisionist) against the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 24.09.2005, in Criminal Case No. 2608 of 2003 (Crime No. 1328 of 1996). Said appeal was heard along with Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2005, filed by Hayat Singh and Vikram singh, and Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2005, filed by Prakash Chand Arya. The appellate court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal filed by accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambaya (present revisionist). Hence, this revision. 5) Learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this Court to provision of Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and submitted that the ingredients of said offence are not made out in the present case as the accused / revisionist was already in custody. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist and after going through the evidence on record, this Court finds that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambaya escaped from detention and committed offence punishable under Section 224 of I.P.C. From 4 the statement of P.W. 4 Sub Inspector D.P. Juyal and P.W. 5 I.H. Jaidi, it has clearly come on the record that after accused / revisionist escaped from detention, a search was made of the accused / revisionist and Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambaya made attempt to avoid his re-arrest. Apart from this, even otherwise there is evidence on record that revisionist who was in custody escaped, as such, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 224 of I.P.C. are made out. 6) Next submission advanced on behalf of the revisionist before this Court is that the appellate court has allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2005, filed by Hayat Singh and Vikram Singh, and Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2005, filed by Prakash Chand Arya, as such, the revisionist alone cannot be held guilty of the charge framed against him. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that charge against the revisionist was in respect of offence punishable under Section 224 of I.P.C., while as against those acquitted, they were facing trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 225 of I.P.C. The evidence as against the present revisionist is natural, categorical and trustworthy. As far as the acquittal of other accused is concerned, it is sufficient to say that the State has not filed any appeal against their acquittal. Apart from this, merely for the reason that they were in the vehicle in which the accused / revisionist was intercepted on 13.09.1996 i.e. two days after the escape, it cannot be 5 said beyond reasonable doubt that they have obstructed the lawful apprehension of the revisionist. 7) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders, which requires interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the revision is dismissed. (The accused / revisionist is said to have been in jail serving out the sentence passed in case in question and the sentences passed against him in other cases). Lower court record be sent back. (Bail Application No. 1279 of 2005 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 29, 2010. H. Negi