Rajasthan High Court: Mere Errors In Judgment Or Omissions In The Face Of Difficult Circumstances Do Not Constitute Criminal Negligence U/s. 223 IPC

The Court allowed a revision Petition, quashing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, thereby acquitting the Petitioner of charges under 223 of the IPC. The Petitioner had argued that the prosecution failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the alleged escape of the accused was directly attributable to any gross negligence or willful omission on his part.

A Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali held, “The concept of criminal negligence, as contemplated under Section 223 IPC, has been consistently interpreted by courts to require a gross and culpable failure to exercise the degree of care which an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. Not every error in judgment, lapse, or inadvertent act constitutes criminal negligence.”

Advocate Manish Pitaliya appeared for the Petitioner, while Deputy Government Advocate S.S. Rathore represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The revision Petition challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 223 of the IPC. The Petitioner argued that the evidence showed that the lock-up was old and insecure, and despite requests from the concerned police station, no steps were taken to enhance its security. It was further argued that the prisoner had escaped by removing the lock of the lock-up and breaking the wall.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court stated, “Section 223 of the IPC pertains to escape from lawful custody due to negligence by a public servant who is legally bound to confine or guard a person. The primary requirement for conviction under this provision is the establishment of "criminal negligence" which directly results in the escape of the detainee.”

The Bench explained that “The doctrine of criminal negligence, particularly in the context of custodial responsibility under Section 223 IPC, demands a calibrated understanding of the threshold of culpability distinguishable from mere civil or administrative lapses. It is not every deviation from ideal conduct or lapse in vigilance that attracts penal consequences; rather, the law mandates a demonstration of such a degree of recklessness or gross dereliction of duty that it evidences a conscious disregard for the foreseeable consequences of one’s omission.”

The Court further remarked, “In the present case, it is evident from the record that the escape of the accused was not the result of any wilful, deliberate, or grossly negligent act on the part of the petitioner. Rather, it arose from a convergence of extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances, including:

• A sudden and unanticipated power failure;
• The absence of a designated lock-up facility at the police station;
• The unbearable heat and lack of ventilation during peak summer;
• And the petitioner’s simultaneous responsibility for wireless communication duties.”

“This Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court, suffer from legal and factual infirmities. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 223 IPC have not been proved against the petitioner,” the Bench held.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The judgments dated 23.02.2006 and 23.06.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (jr. Dn.) cum Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Cr. Case No.15/1997 and learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in Cr. Appeal No.20/2006 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand discharged.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.

Cause Title: Mushtaq Ali v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:25339)

Click here to read/download the Order