The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a head warden accused of facilitating an undertrial’s escape from prison in 2006. The court ruled that internal Jail Manual rules cannot establish criminal liability without concrete proof of intentional facilitation, noting that charges based on suspicion and unverified testimony were unsustainable.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava was dealing with a plea of the head warden challenging his conviction and five-year sentence after an undertrial murder accused fled from the jail and was later arrested with arms and cash.
“It is to be further observed that the responsibilities fixed under the Jail Manual are relevant for disciplinary action against the erring officials or against the dereliction of duty; it cannot be used to prove a criminal charge against the accused for any particular offence, which has to be decided only based on the ingredients of the offence as defined under a penal statute,” the court said on August 14.
The order underscored that the manner and circumstances under which the prisoner escaped are doubtful since the dog squad first moved towards the female ward and then to the main gate, and the investigating officer also admitted that either the prisoner fled from the female ward or through the main gate.
On May 20, a prisoner facing trial under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC, besides other serious charges, escaped from the Divisional Jail, Lohardaga. He had been brought there from Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar in Ranchi, in November 2005.
He was found to be missing from the ward during the evening prisoner count held at around 6 pm on May 20. He was, however, present during the 12 pm count conducted by the in-charge warden, who is the petitioner in the case.
The assistant jailor then filed a written report, leading to an FIR against the escaped prisoner. As the investigation progressed, the police added criminal conspiracy and other charges to the case. The primary allegation against the warden came from a gate guard, who claimed that the warden directed him to leave his post to pluck mangoes inside the jail premises and took the main gate’s keys from him for about 20 to 25 minutes, during which time the escape supposedly took place.
When the escapee was later recaptured with arms and cash, he gave a confessional statement asserting that he had managed to flee entirely on his own via the female ward area without any assistance or conspiracy involving prison staff. Despite the prisoner’s statement, the trial court convicted the warden, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The petitioner challenged this order before the high court.
The court observed that the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC completely failed because the co-accused was acquitted, and the prosecution failed to produce any evidence showing a meeting of the minds or collusion between the appellant and the escaped prisoner.
The court highlighted that the testimony of the gate guard regarding handing over the gate keys for 20 to 25 minutes was unverified by any other witness. It noted that the guard was himself the gate guard in charge of the keys at the time of the escape, making his delayed revelation to the police highly suspicious and an apparent attempt to save his own skin by shifting liability onto the petitioner.
The high court pointed out serious flaws in the investigation, including the probe officer’s failure to inspect key official records, like duty and attendance registers, to verify who was actually posted at the gates. Additionally, the court noted that mere alleged custody of one set of keys could not logically facilitate an escape, as passing through the jail required moving through multiple locked gates guarded by other personnel.
“The trial court has miserably failed to consider the overall aspects of the case in proper perspective of the evidence available on record in the light of charges levelled against the present petitioner rather concentrated towards provisions of Jail Manual and based the conviction of the appellant on extraneous facts, which appear to be perverse, illegal, beyond weight of evidence and non-consideration of material available on record,” it noted.
Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express (Digital), where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More
