Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Karnataka High Court held that there can be two trials under Section 224 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) when both the incidents are in respect of different crimes.

What was the Background of Sri Somashekar v. State of Karnataka & Ors. Case?

• Sadappa, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASP), received incident’s credible information about iin Hosahudya Village on 09^th April 2012.
• ASP and three other police officers went to the village where incident had taken place between two groups.
• The police officers pacified and controlled the situation and arrested the petitioner and other accused. And handed over the petitioner and other accused to Sadappa (ASP) to take them to police station.
• The petitioner pulled ASP and escaped from custody. Police tried to trace him, but they were unable to find him.
• ASP lodged the complaint and on the basis of this police registered Crime No.12/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 224 of IPC.
• The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 224 of IPC.
• Being aggrieved by the judgment of trial court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and this court also, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.
• After that the present revision petition is filed before the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The petitioner escaped from custody in which he was lawfully detained for a cognizable offence in 2012, it is confirmed that he committed an offence punishable under Section 224 of IPC.
• The main contention of the petitioner is that he was not in lawful custody, and the Court rejected the contention and said when investigating officer received the credible information regarding the offence, immediately rushed to the spot and arrested and brought him to the police station. This was the lawful custody.
  • Section 41(g) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) states that on credible information, a person can be arrested by the Police officer when a cognizable offence is committed.
• The other contention is that under Section 224 of IPC, there cannot be two trials. The court held that in this situation Section 220 CrPC is not attracted. The petitioner was arrested for the offence committed under Section 307 IPC, but in the present case he was charged for the offence committed under Section 224 IPC.
  • When series of acts are not so connected together and there cannot be one trial in respect of another incident.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in this Case?

Section 224 of IPC

• This Section deals with the resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension.
• It states that 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 or 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.
• Section 262 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with a similar concept.

Section 220 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the trial for more than one offence. It states that-
• If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
• When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 212 or in sub-section (1) of Section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
• If the facts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.
• If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.
• Nothing contained in this section shall affect Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).