STATE Vs. PURNA CHANDRA JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned standing counsel is present. Despite service of notice and intimation given by learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, the respondent is absent and no one has also appeared on his behalf.

(2.) Heard learned Standing Counsel. Perused the impugned judgment and the L.C.R. The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows : Prosecution was launched under Section 224, Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") against the respondent in G. R. Case No. 1780 of 1983 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on the allegation that while under arrest in connection with Balianta P. S. Case No. 73 of 1983 for offence under Section 302, IPC, he escaped with the hand-cuff from the office of the C.S.I., Bhubaneswar on 27-8-1983. The plea of the respondent against the said charge was that he never escaped from police custody but had gone to answer the call of nature after taking permission from the Constables. According to him, when he returned after answering the call of nature no one was there at the C.S.I. Office and so he had to leave that place. But the police unthorities misconceived the situation and forwarded him for escaping from lawful custody. Prosecution produced oral and documentary evidence to prove the charge, but learned S. D. J. M., Bhubaneswar, after considering such evidence came to hold that the charge under Section 224, I.P.C. is not established against the respondent. He accordingly recorded an order of acquittal. Aggrieved, the State has fled this appeal to set aside the order of acquittal and to record a conviction against the respondent for offence under Section 224, I.P.C.

(3.) Mr. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the oral and documentary evidence clearly establish that the respondent was lawfully arrested and while in such lawful custody, he escaped from the office of the C.S.I., Bhubaneswar. According to him, the trial Court went wrong in acquitting the respondent with the observation that his arrest and detention in custody was not lawful. He further submits that acquittal of an accused in a case in which he was arrested cannot ipso facto render the arrest of such accused in the case illegal.