Legal Provisions of Section 224 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Intentional offer of resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of oneself has been made a punishable offence under this section. The section says that whoever intentionally offers either any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which either he is charged or for which he has been convicted, or either any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which either he is charged or for which he has been detained lawfully for any such offence, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to two years, or with fine, or with both.
The explanation attached to the section states that the punishment under this section is in addition to the main offence for which he has been apprehended or detained or with which he has been apprehended or detained or with which he has been charged or for which he had been convicted.
The section requires that the resistance offered or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension must be intentional. In such a case, he may have been convicted of an offence or charged with an offence. If such is not the case, then the prosecution must establish that he has either escaped or attempted to escape from any custody in which he was lawfully detained.
A lawfully arrested accused escaping after causing knife injury to the head constable is guilty under this section and his friends who pelted stones on the police party with a view to rescue him committed an offence under section 225 of the Code. But a suspect escaping from the police outpost where he had been brought for interrogation could not be held guilty under this section even though he was put under the control of two policemen at that time because he could not be said to be under lawful custody.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
A person had committed an offence. Almost twenty seven years thereafter another person of the same name was arrested, tried and acquitted. The accused escaped from lawful custody while under arrest. The court held that he could not be held liable under this section.
But where an arrested accused, while being taken by a sub-inspector of police to the police station, was forcibly taken away by a crowd, and he did not submit himself thereafter before the police until he was rearrested about two weeks later, was held guilty under this section.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court is of the view that a prisoner, while being taken from the prison to another place like a hospital for medical treatment, or while he is working outside the prison or is otherwise away from it, will be deemed to be still in prison under sections 55, 56 and 58 of the Prisoners Act read with para 536A of the Punjab Manual for Superintendence and Management of Jails, and will be guilty under section 224 of the Indian Penal Code if he escapes or attempts to escape from such custody.
The Supreme Court has held that persons apprehended for gaming could be prosecuted under this section after they escaped from police custody. Where a constable caught hold of the accused, a habitual offender, whom he suspected to be liable for housebreaking and theft, and while taking him to the police station they stopped at a tea stall from where he escaped after giving a dagger blow to the constable, it was held that the accused was guilty under this section.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Where, on the other hand, some villagers detained the accused on suspicion of having committed certain crime and sent word to a police station from where a constable came and, while being taken to the police station, he escaped, it was held that since it could not be shown that he had been taken into lawful custody he could not be convicted under this section.
The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable, and is triable by metropolitan magistrate or magistrate of the first or second class.