Legal Provisions of Section 225 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person:
Intentional offering of resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of an offender or rescuing or attempting to rescue a person from lawful custody has been made an offence under this section. The section states that whoever either intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of any other person for an offence, or rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any such custody to which he has been detained lawfully for any offence, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to two years, or with fine, or with both; or, if the offence with respect to the person as described above is punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term extending up to ten years, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the offence with respect to the person as described above is punishable with death, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the offence with respect to the person as described above is liable under the sentence to a court of justice, or by virtue of a commutation of such a sentence, to imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if such a person as stated above is under sentence of death, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or simple imprisonment for a term up to ten years, and shall also be liable for fine.
Image Source: cdn.shareyouressays.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The prosecution has to establish that the offer of resistance or illegal obstruction was intentional. If it is a case of rescue or attempt to rescue then it must be proved that the person was lawfully detained for an offence. Even though the word ‘rescue’ has not been defined in the Code, it means freeing a person from custody by force without the consent of the person who has him in his custody. There is always an element of force in this.
The word ‘intentionally’ does not apply to the word ‘rescue’ in the second part of the offence under this section, and that the omission is deliberate is clearly obvious because no such omission takes place, for instance, in sections 173, 221 and 222 of the Code where the expression ‘intentionally’ has been used in each part.
It is also not necessary that the rescuer must have knowledge of the circumstances of arrest of the person rescued because such knowledge is not a requirement under this section.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Two accused persons not taking part in a riotous attack by a mob on a train could not be held guilty under this section read with section 149 of the Code as they had neither rescued nor attempted to rescue.
A person arrested on the basis of a warrant issued by a court which does not bear the seal of the court is not a valid arrest, and even if other elements of the section are present, sections 224 and 225 would not apply. Similarly, the endorsement on the warrant must bear the name of a certain person in order to authorise him to make an arrest.
This is a requirement under section 79, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (now section 74 of the 1973 Code), and in the absence of such endorsement an arrest is illegal and an accused cannot be held guilty under sections 224 and 225 of the Code even if other requirements of the section are present.
The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable if the case falls under the first part, but otherwise non-bailable and non-compoundable, and is triable by metropolitan magistrate or magistrate of the first or second class if the case falls under the second part and by the court of session if the case falls under any other part.