P (PLP)

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his brother, Soni, were accused of committing an offence under section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code in the District of Gujrat and, as they had absconded, they were proclaimed as offenders. On the 20th of September 1949, Mahr Abdur Rahman, Sub‑Inspector, was in village Bhabra in the District of Sargodha in connection with the investigation of a theft case, when at about 1 p. m., he learnt that two persons were hiding themselves in a jungle in the vicinity of the village The informer gave the descriptions of the persons, who were concealing themselves, and also mentioned that two mares and a filly were standing by them. Mahr Abdur Rahman was in search of the appellant and his brother Soni, who were known to him to be absconders from justice, and, on receiving the above‑mentioned information, be arranged a party to apprehend them. The raid party consisting of about twenty persons was arranged and they went towards the jungle where the two suspect ed persons had been reported to be hiding. The police party was on mares and from a distance of about half a mile they could see the two persons whom they wanted to apprehend. The two persons in the jungle also saw the police party and, getting up, both of them rode their mares and galloped away towards village Bucha Kalan followed by the police party and entered a cotton field. The police party entered the field and both the wanted men, who were carrying firearms, fired to effect their escape with the result that Mahla, one of the members of the police party, received fatal injuries from a bullet and Mahr Abdur Rahman. Sub‑Inspector and two other persons received injuries from a gunshot. As it had grown dark, no attempt was made to arrest the wanted men that night beyond surrounding the field, but in the morning when the police party entered the field they found that both of them had escaped. On the 30th of October 1949, Bati appellant was arrested by Raja Bagh Ali, Sub‑Inspector, in Ghagianwala jungle within the jurisdiction of Police Station Qadirabad in the District of Gujrat and the dead body of the appellant's brother, Soni, was found in the area of village Ahmadwala on the 27th of November 1949 by the same Sub‑Inspector. In support of their case that the two persons chased by the police on 20th September 1949 were the appellant and his brother and that both were carrying firearms with which they fired at the police party, the prosecution produced a number of witnesses. The trial Court considered the prosecution evidence and arrived at the conclusion that it was established that the appellant and his brother were the two persons during the chase of whom on 20th of September 1949 Mahla received fatal injuries and Mahr Abdur Rahman and two other members of the police party received gunshot wounds. It held, however, that the appellant and his brother were not carrying fire‑arms and that the injured persons had probably been hit by shots fired by the other members of the party and, therefore, acquitted the appellant of the charges under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. With respect to the offence under section 224 of the Pakistan Penal Code. it was held that it had been established that the appellant knew that he was wanted by the police and, as he ran away when the police party attempted to arrest him, he had been proved guilty of an offence under section 224 of the Pakistan Penal Code. I have gone through the evidence and find that the findings of the trial Court on questions of fact are, in the main, correct and what is left to decide is whether or not the appellant had, by running away when the police and the private persons accompanying them wanted to arrest him, committed an offence under section 224, Pakistan Penal Code. Section 224 of the Pakistan Penal Code reads as follows :‑

Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruc tion to the ‑lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Explanation :‑The punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of which he was convicted." This section applies to the following classes of persons: (a) any person, who intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence of which he is charged or of which he has been convicted; (b) any person, who escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any offence. The evidence on the record establishes that the appellant and his brother Soni had absconded to evade arrest in a case under section 395 Pakistan Penal Code pending against them in Gujrat District which evasion of arrest had resulted in proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal procedure being taken and that P. W. 20 Abdur Rahman, Sub‑Inspector of Police, knew that the appellant and his brother were required in the dacoity case. Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which defines the powers of a Police Officer to arrest without a warrant, had application to the facts of the case and P. W. 20 and the police foot constables accompanying him were authorized under clauses (1) and (3) of that section to arrest the appellant and his brother without a warrant. The private persons, who accompani ed the police officers, had also the right to arrest the appellant and his brother without warrants under sections 42 and 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it is, therefore, clear that the arrest, if effected, would have been lawful. The question that falls for decision, however, is whether by merely running away at the approach of the persons who wanted to arrest him the appellant had been guilty of an offence under section 224 Pakistan Penal Code. The learned counsel for the Crown contended that running away by a person, who can legally be apprehended, constituted resistance or obstruction to the arrest, but could cite no authority in support of his contention and had to admit that the meanings he wanted to be given to "resistance" and "obstruction" were not their ordinary meanings, In my opinion, the words "resistance" and "obstruction" occurring in section 224 Pakistan Penal Code' have their ordinary meanings and were not intended to have the meanings which the learned counsel for the Crown would have me attach to them. No doubt, by running away the appellant evaded arrest, but I am of the opinion that mere evasion of arrest does not amount to offering resistance or obstruction to the arrest which would result only if there were some active opposition to the arrest by force or show of force. If the prosecution had succeeded in establishing that the appellant was carrying a fire‑arm which he used to shake off his pursuers, I would have held that he had offered resistance or obstruction to his arrest, though he may not have hurt any one of his pursuers, but, as the allegation of they prosecution that the appellant carried a gun had not been accepted by the trial Court and the finding has neither been challenged nor appears to be incorrect, I must hold that the trial Court was wrong in finding that by merely, running away the appellant had been guilty of an offence under section 224 Pakistan Penal Code. The view I take of section 224; Pakistan Penal Code receives some support from a case reported as Nanjan (1888‑1‑Weir 205) which, though a judgment of but a few lines, lays down that mere evasion of arrest did not constitute an offence under section 224 of the Penal Code. I considered the question whether or not, when the field, in which the appellant was; was surrounded by P. W. 20 and his companions, the appellant could not be deemed to have been confined and his escape from the field could not be deemed to be escape from lawful custody, bringing the case within the second part of section 224 Pakistan Penal Code, but,' as the evidence led by the prosecution does not make it clear that the appellant and his brother had not escaped from the field, in which they were believed to be, before it was surrounded, I express no view on that aspect of the case. As I am of the view that the finding of the Court below that the Appellant had, by simply running away to evade lawful arrest of himself, been guilty of an offence under section 224 of the Pakistan Penal Code was not correct, I accept the appeal and acquit the appellant of that offence. A. H. Appeal accepted.