The offence u/s 217 IPC is attracted when there is wilful disobedience to save any person from legal punishment; SC.

Supreme Court of India

Justice R Banumathi and Justice A S Bopanna

The SC { V. RAJARAM v. STATE} set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC by which he was sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and four years respectively.

It was held by the SC that one of the essential ingredients to make out the offence under Section 217 IPC is that the public servant should have disobeyed any directions of law with the intention to save any person from legal punishment. In the present case, it was held that there is no evidence to show that the appellant has disobeyed the directions of any law. On the contrary, there is clear evidence to show that the appellant, PW-1-Sub-Inspector of Police and other police personnel have used mild force against the miscreants and thus, chased them away to prevent any further untoward incident. It was held by the SC that there is no evidence to prove that the appellant omitted to do any act to sustain the conviction under Section 217 IPC.

Further held, one of the essential ingredients of Section 221 IPC is the intentional omission to apprehend a person or intentionally aiding such person to escape. PW-29-Superintendent of Police and PW-30-Additional Superintendent of Police who were present on the spot issued directions and accordingly, the appellant acted. After the occurrence was over, PW-29 directed the appellant to search for the accused. Accordingly, the appellant went in search of the accused and arrested accused No.1 (V.P. Pandi @ Attack Pandi) on 15.05.2007; accused No.2 (M. Thiruchelvam) on 16.05.2007 and accused Nos.3 and 4 (Prabhu @ Arockiyaprabu and M. Saravanamuthu) on 10.05.2007. It was held that there is no evidence to show that the appellant intentionally omitted to apprehend the accused on the spot to sustain the conviction under Section 221 IPC.

It was held by the SC that the High Court was not right in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, and the impugned judgment qua the appellant is not sustainable and the appellant was acquitted under both charges u/s 217 IPC and 221 IPC.