'Mere Error In Judgement Is Not Criminal Negligence': Rajasthan High Court Acquits Constable Under Whose Watch Two Undertrials Escaped

While acquitting a police constable charged under Section 223 (IPC) following absconsion of two under-trial prisons from his guard, Rajasthan High Court held that when a police officer was tasked with dual and simultaneous duties like guarding as well as attending wireless operations, expectations of flawless supervision must be weighed against practical limitations of manpower and infrastructure.

Section 223, IPC, pertained to escape from lawful custody due to negligence by a public servant who was legally bound to confine or guard a person.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further held that the primary requirement of Section 223 i.e. criminal negligence, was fulfilled on gross and culpable failure to exercise the degree of care which an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. Not every error in judgment, lapse, or inadvertence constituted criminal negligence.

The Court was hearing a revision petition filed by a police constable convicted under Section 223. The petitioner was assigned guard duty and was also responsible for managing wireless communication at the police station.

Two under-trials were in his custody and owing to the absence of a lock-up facility, they were kept handcuffed and tied to a table inside the SHO's office. On the night of the incident, there was a sudden power outage, leading to a lack of ventilation and peak summer conditions.

The prisoners began shouting for relief due to suffocation pursuant to which, acting on humanitarian grounds, the petitioner moved the accused outside the SHO's office, and tied their handcuffs to a pillar in the open area. However, taking advantage of the dark, the prisoners managed to escape and the petitioner was convicted under Section 223.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the petitioner's act of relocating the detainees, while retaining their handcuffs, was not a grave dereliction to attract Section 223, since it was not due to culpable indifference or reckless disregard, but driven by humanitarian considerations.

The Court held that the escape was not the result of the petitioner's criminal negligence but the convergence of extraordinary circumstances:

1. Dual duties being performed by the petitioner.
2. No lock-up facility for the prisoners
3. Deteriorating physical condition of the detainees due to which petitioner took a pragmatic and compassionate step.
4. Escape happened despite continued application of restraints and not directly facilitated by any grossly negligent conduct.

The Court further opined that criminal negligence could not be predicated on errors of judgment or bona fide acts taken under emergent circumstances, especially driven by humanitarian considerations and lacking any elements of intent or recklessness.

In this light, it was held that the ingredients of Section 223 were not proved against the petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed, and the petitioner was acquitted.

Title: Mushtaq Ali v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 217

Click Here To Read/Download Order