An Exposition of Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code: Resistance to Apprehension and Escape from Lawful Custody
Introduction
Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) addresses offences relating to the resistance or obstruction by a person to their own lawful apprehension, and their escape or attempt to escape from lawful custody. This provision plays a crucial role in upholding the administration of justice by ensuring that individuals who are lawfully required to submit to the legal process do not evade it through resistance or flight. This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of Section 224 IPC, delving into its essential ingredients, judicial interpretations of its key terms such as "lawful apprehension," "offence," and "escape," particularly in contemporary contexts like parole and furlough violations. Furthermore, it will explore the consequences that follow a conviction under this section, drawing extensively upon the jurisprudence laid down by Indian courts as reflected in the provided reference materials.
The Statutory Framework: Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code
Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is worded as follows:
"Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
The provision also includes an Explanation, which clarifies the punitive scope: "Explanation.—The punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was punishable, had he been charged with the offence of which he was convicted." This aspect is noted in cases such as Hanuman v. State Of Maharashtra (2019), which describes Section 224 IPC as a punitive provision defining a distinct crime and its punishment.
Essential Ingredients for Invoking Section 224 IPC
For an offence under Section 224 IPC to be constituted, several key ingredients must be satisfied. These have been subject to considerable judicial scrutiny.
Lawfulness of Apprehension or Detention
A fundamental prerequisite for the application of Section 224 IPC is that the apprehension or detention from which the accused resisted or escaped must be lawful. If the initial apprehension or detention itself is found to be unlawful, any subsequent resistance or escape may not attract the provisions of this section. The High Court of Rajasthan in Devi Singh v. State Of Rajasthan (1963) underscored this principle. In this case, the conviction under Section 224 IPC was set aside because the apprehension was deemed unlawful due to irregularities in the execution of warrants outside the local jurisdiction of the issuing court, without adherence to the procedures laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court observed, "The apprehension of the appellants by the police was not lawful... their conviction under section 224, Indian Penal Code, is not sustainable." This highlights the critical importance of procedural compliance by law enforcement agencies for an apprehension or detention to be considered "lawful."
Detention "For an Offence"
Another crucial element is that the lawful apprehension or detention must be "for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted." The Allahabad High Court, in the early case of Emperor v. Muli (1920) (and its seemingly identical report Muli v. Emperor (1920)), dealt with a situation where an individual escaped from jail while confined under Section 123 of the CrPC for failure to furnish security for good behaviour. The Court held that such detention was not "for any offence." Consequently, the conviction under Section 224 IPC was altered to one under Section 225B IPC, which pertains to resistance or escape in cases not otherwise provided for. Piggott, J. observed, "the applicant Muli was not being detained for any offence, and consequently the conviction against him should not have been recorded under section 224 of the Indian Penal Code." This distinction is vital in determining the applicability of Section 224 IPC.
Actus Reus: Resistance, Obstruction, Escape, or Attempted Escape
The provision penalizes four types of physical acts: intentional resistance, illegal obstruction to lawful apprehension, actual escape from lawful custody, or an attempt to escape. The term "escape" has been interpreted broadly by the courts. In Kulandaivelu, In Re (1968), the Madras High Court held that a person legally arrested must submit to be dealt with according to law, and if they gain liberty before being delivered by due course of law, they commit an escape. The Court, agreeing with established principles, stated, "even when the escape is effected by the consent or the neglect of the person that kept the prisoner in custody, the latter is no less guilty." In this specific case, the petitioner, who was rescued by a crowd, did not submit to custody for about a fortnight and was held to have committed an offence under Section 224 IPC, also noting that he "again came and used force on the officers and ran away."
Mens Rea: Intention
Section 224 IPC explicitly uses the word "intentionally" in relation to offering resistance or illegal obstruction ("Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction..."). While the latter part of the section concerning "escapes or attempts to escape" does not reiterate "intentionally," the very nature of an act of escape or an attempt to escape generally presupposes a volitional act on the part of the accused. The jurisprudence reviewed does not delve deeply into this aspect beyond the statutory language, but the requirement of a conscious act to sever the bonds of lawful custody is implicit.
Judicial Interpretation of "Escape" in Diverse Contexts
The concept of "escape" under Section 224 IPC extends beyond the traditional imagery of breaking out from a physical prison or police station.
Escape from Physical Custody
This includes various forms of physical confinement. For instance, in Anil Lala Saundade v. State Of Maharashtra (2003), the petitioner had escaped from lawful custody while undergoing a sentence in an Open Prison and was subsequently prosecuted under Section 224 IPC. The case of Mrs. Narinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab (1995) involved an FIR registered under Section 224 IPC following an alleged escape from police custody, affirming its applicability in such scenarios.
Overstaying Parole or Furlough as "Escape"
A significant development in the interpretation of "escape" under Section 224 IPC relates to prisoners who fail to surrender after the expiry of their parole or furlough period. Courts have consistently held that such non-surrender constitutes an escape from lawful custody. In HITEN HARIDAS RAICHURA v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR (2024), the Bombay High Court affirmed that a clear case of an offence punishable under Section 224 IPC was made out against a petitioner who failed to surrender after being released on a false pretext while on parole. The Court cited its earlier decision in Mohd. Azam Aslam Butt v. State of Maharashtra (2016), where it was held that "non surrendering to the prison authorities after the expiry of parole or furlough leave period will amount to divergence from the standard rules and regulations... amounting to escape from the legal custody." Similarly, in DEEPAK @ KILCHI S/o SURESH SHENDE (IN JAIL) v. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON (EAST REGION), NAGPUR and ANOTHER (2020), the petitioner's failure to return within the given time after being granted furlough leave, necessitating his coercive return by the police, led to his conviction under Section 224 IPC. The case of Kiran Antariksh Ukey v. Research Officer (2015) also illustrates this, where an offence under Section 224 IPC was registered against a prisoner who overstayed her parole leave by 798 days and had to be arrested and brought back to prison. These cases firmly establish that "custody" for the purposes of Section 224 IPC is not limited to physical confinement but extends to the legal control exercised over a prisoner even when temporarily released on parole or furlough.
Abetment of Escape under Section 224 IPC
While Section 224 IPC directly penalizes the individual who resists apprehension or escapes, aiding or abetting such an act is also punishable. The Supreme Court in Kanta Prashad v. Rizak Ram (1958) dealt with a case where police constables were convicted under Section 224 read with Section 109 (abetment) of the IPC, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. They were found to have conspired and abetted the escape of an undertrial prisoner, M.P. Khare, from lawful custody. The judgment noted, "It is clear from the findings of the courts below that M.P. Khare escaped from lawful custody and the appellants had enabled him to do so..." This case underscores that those who facilitate an escape punishable under Section 224 IPC are themselves liable for abetment of that offence.
Consequences Attendant upon Conviction under Section 224 IPC
A conviction under Section 224 IPC carries several significant consequences, both direct and collateral.
Additional Punishment
As per the Explanation to Section 224 IPC, the punishment for escape or resistance is in addition to any punishment for the original offence for which the person was apprehended or detained. This was reiterated in Hanuman v. State Of Maharashtra (2019).
Forfeiture of Remission
Escape from lawful custody often leads to the forfeiture of remission earned by the prisoner. In Anil Lala Saundade v. State Of Maharashtra (2003), the petitioner, who escaped from lawful custody and was convicted under Section 224 IPC, faced a deduction of 5 years, 2 months, and 5 days of remission earned by him, as a disciplinary action under prison rules. The Bombay High Court in SHALIK MARUTI KOWE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2014) also discussed the forfeiture of remission in cases of escape, noting that "escaping from legal custody is an offence under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code also," and highlighted the potentially anomalous situation where remission forfeiture for escape under prison rules could be more stringent than for other serious offences.
Adverse Impact on Future Liberties
A prior conviction under Section 224 IPC can adversely affect a prisoner's prospects for future release on parole, furlough, or even temporary bail. In Patel Mehul v. State Of Gujarat (2015), the applicant-convict's jail remarks noted a previous conviction under Section 224 IPC, a factor typically considered by authorities. Similarly, in DEEPAK @ KILCHI S/o SURESH SHENDE (2020), the petitioner's past conviction under Section 224 IPC for not returning from furlough was a ground for rejecting a subsequent furlough application. Furthermore, in Kiran Antariksh Ukey v. Research Officer (2015), a prisoner's unauthorized overstay of parole leave, leading to a Section 224 IPC offence, rendered her ineligible for transfer to an Open Colony under the relevant rules.
Distinction from Cognate Provisions
Section 224 IPC is part of a cluster of provisions in the IPC dealing with offences against public justice related to apprehension and custody. It is important to distinguish it from:
- Section 223 IPC: Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by a public servant. This focuses on the culpability of the public servant.
- Section 225 IPC: Resistance or obstruction to the lawful apprehension of another person, or rescuing or attempting to rescue another person from lawful custody. This contrasts with Section 224, which deals with resistance or escape by the person himself.
- Section 225A IPC: Omission to apprehend, or sufferance of escape, on the part of a public servant, in cases not otherwise provided for.
- Section 225B IPC: Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension, or escape or rescue in cases not otherwise provided for by law. As seen in Emperor v. Muli (1920), this section may apply where the detention is lawful but not "for an offence" as required by Section 224.
Conclusion
Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code serves as a vital instrument in preserving the integrity of the legal process by penalizing individuals who resist their lawful apprehension or escape from lawful custody for an offence. The judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting its provisions, particularly by clarifying that "lawful apprehension" is a non-negotiable prerequisite and by expanding the understanding of "escape" to unequivocally include the failure to surrender after parole or furlough. The consequences of a conviction under Section 224 IPC are substantial, ranging from additional imprisonment to the forfeiture of earned remissions and adverse effects on future applications for temporary release. This underscores the seriousness with which the legal system views attempts to subvert lawful detention and the due course of justice.