Jail Manual Rules Govern Disciplinary Action, Cannot Be Used To Prove Criminal Charge: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that responsibilities fixed upon jail officials under the Jail Manual may be relevant for disciplinary action or dereliction of duty, but cannot be used to prove a criminal charge, which must be determined on the basis of the ingredients of the offence under the penal statute.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava made the observation while setting aside the conviction of a jail official under Section 222 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the escape of an undertrial prisoner from the Divisional Prison, Lohardaga.
The appeal arose from the conviction of appellant Bidya Bhushan Sharma by the Sessions Judge, Lohardaga. He was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 222 IPC. No separate sentence was imposed under Section 120B IPC. Co-accused Ganesh Mishra was acquitted of all charges.
As per the prosecution case, undertrial prisoner Uday Nath Oraon @ Uday Jee was brought to the Divisional Prison, Lohardaga from Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi in November 2005. On May 20, 2006, during the evening counting of prisoners, he was found missing. The appellant was the warden on duty at the relevant time. An FIR was initially registered under Section 224 IPC against the escaped prisoner. During investigation, Section 120B IPC and Section 17(ii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act were also added.
The prisoner was subsequently apprehended with ₹6 lakh in cash and firearms. He allegedly stated in his confessional statement before the police that he had managed to escape from the female ward on his own without assistance from any jail official. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the matter proceeded to trial. The Trial Court concluded that the appellant had intentionally facilitated the undertrial prisoner's escape in conspiracy with him and convicted him under Section 222 read with Section 120B IPC.
In appeal, the High Court examined the circumstances surrounding the escape and the evidence relied upon by the Trial Court. The Court found that the manner in which the prisoner escaped was itself doubtful. It noted that the dog squad had first moved towards the female ward and thereafter towards the main gate. The investigating officer had also admitted that the prisoner could have escaped either from the female ward or through the main gate.
The Court further noted that Bihari Yadav was posted at the first gate and had the keys to the main gate. However, the investigating officer had not inspected the relevant registers recording the entry and exit of jail officials to ascertain whether he was posted there at the relevant time. It also found the role of one of the prosecution witnesses doubtful. Even if his testimony that the key had been handed over to the appellant for some time was accepted, the Court said this by itself could not connect the appellant with facilitating the prisoner's escape, particularly when the key to another gate was with another guard.
It was in this context that the High Court faulted the Trial Court for relying on the duties prescribed under the Jail Manual to sustain the criminal charge. The Court observed:
“The responsibilities fixed under Jail Manual are relevant for the purpose of disciplinary action against the erring officials or against the dereliction of duty, it cannot be used to prove criminal charge against the accused for any particular offence, which has to be decided only on the basis of ingredients of the offence as defined under penal statute.”
The High Court found that the Trial Court had failed to consider the overall evidence in the proper perspective and had instead concentrated on the provisions of the Jail Manual while convicting the appellant. It held that the conviction was based on extraneous facts and described the Trial Court's findings as “perverse, illegal, beyond weight of evidence and non-consideration of material available on record.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence.
Case Title: Bidya Bhushan Sharma v. State of Jharkhand
Case Number: Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 801 of 2015
Appearance:
For the Appellant: Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.