Skip to content


Ram Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1936All651
AppellantRam Lal and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- .....a report leaving the three applicants to see that chokhey lal who was still in the outpost did not escape. chokhey lal, however, did escape and the applicants made no attempt to seize him. it has been argued on their behalf that there is no reason to suspect that they wanted chokhey lal to escape. it is said that that they may have been guilty of cowardice, but chokhey lal was in a very dangerous mood and there was some excuse for it.2. i do not think that the motive of the applicants enters into the matter at all. the section as it has been framed says that whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend any person liable to be apprehended for an offence, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, shall be punished. the applicants were public.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Allsop, J.

1. This is an application in revision by Ram Lal, Angnu Singh and Jit Bahadur Singh who have been convicted under Section 221, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each. They were all three police constables. They were stationed at a certain outpost in which one of the constables attacked the head constable with a lathi and murdered him. The murderer's name was Chokhey Lal. The evidence is that the applicants were present when the murder was committed. An outsider called Sammu seized Chokhey Lal and grappled with him for a few moments, but the three applicants and others who were there would not go to his assistance so that Chokhey Lal released himself. It is said that he again attacked the head constable. In the meanwhile another constable Puttu had come to the place and he went off to make a report leaving the three applicants to see that Chokhey Lal who was still in the outpost did not escape. Chokhey Lal, however, did escape and the applicants made no attempt to seize him. It has been argued on their behalf that there is no reason to suspect that they wanted Chokhey Lal to escape. It is said that that they may have been guilty of cowardice, but Chokhey Lal was in a very dangerous mood and there was some excuse for it.

2. I do not think that the motive of the applicants enters into the matter at all. The section as it has been framed says that whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend any person liable to be apprehended for an offence, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, shall be punished. The applicants were public servants. They were legally bound to arrest a man who had committed murder in their presence and they omitted to apprehend him. There can be no doubt that they did it intentionally. There was nothing involuntary about it. Their motive may not have been that they wanted the man to escape, but that they were afraid of getting hurt, but motive must always be distinguished from intention. They certainly intended not to apprehend the man. I, therefore, think that legally they are guilty of an offence. The applicants have exercised their right of appeal in the Sessions Court and their appeals have been dismissed. There is no reason why this Court should interfere in revision. The application is rejected. Applicants must surrender to their bail.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //