REHMAT ALI Versus STATE
This criminal appeal arises from the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, challenging the appellant's conviction for negligence in the discharge of his duties as a police constable. The appellant was charged with allowing an under-trial prisoner to escape from custody while escorting him to court. The core legal question was whether the evidence established that the appellant was negligent in his duties, thereby facilitating the prisoner's escape. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the prisoner's escape from handcuffed custody could not have occurred without the appellant's negligence, as the handcuffs could not have been removed or broken without notice. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully discharged its burden of proof regarding the offence. Furthermore, the Court determined that the matter involved a question of the appreciation of evidence rather than a question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
- Does the escape of a prisoner from police custody constitute negligence under Section 223 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the question of whether a police officer was negligent in allowing a prisoner to escape a question of law or a question of fact?
- Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving negligence in a case involving the escape of a prisoner from custody?
- Section 223, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑ This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dismissing the appellant's revision petition.
2. The appellant has been convicted under section 223 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
3. The appellant is a Constable. He along with another Constable Ziauddin was asked to escort an under‑trial prisoner to the Court of a Magistrate. According to the prosecution case the under‑trial prisoner was produced before the Magistrate, and while Constable Ziauddin stayed inside the Court‑room to obtain the signature of the Magistrate on the warrant, the appellant took the under‑trial outside the Court‑room and although his both hands were handcuffed he escaped from the custody of the appellant.
4. The only question for consideration before us is whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case it has been proved that the appellant was negligent in his duties and thus suffered the under‑trial to escape from confinement.
5. P. W. Muhammad Ali, Head Constable deposed that he had duly checked the handcuff of the under--trial prisoner.
6. D. W. 1 Sikandar Sultan examined by the appellant in his defence stated that he had noticed the prisoner released his hands from the handcuffs. It is indeed, curious that although this witness could see the under‑trial prisoner busy trying to release his hands, it did not attract the notice of the appellant who was nearest to the under‑trial prisoner and was charged with the duty of keeping him in safe custody.
7. These facts are sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the appellant. Besides, this is a question of appreciation of evidence and no question of law is involved in the case.
8. There is no shifting of onus as has been contended before us. The onus was on the prosecution and the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence against the appellant.
9. For our own satisfaction we had a demonstration made by two Police Constables in Court, and we found it difficult to believe that the handcuff could give way and release the hands of the under‑trial prisoner unless either it had been opened or broken.
10. In the leave granting order this Court had directed that the disposal of the revision petition of co‑accused Ziauddin pending in the High Court should be awaited. We are now told that the revision petition has not yet teen disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we did not think it necessary to waste more time awaiting the disposal of Ziauddin's revision petition.
11. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. Appeal dismissed.