R.S. Bindra, J.C. -
(1.) THIS Criminal revision by Bibhashini Dutta and Golak Chandra Dutta is directed against the judgment dated 30th of September by which the Sessions Judge, Tripura, rejected the appeal of the petitioners against their conviction Under Section 225, Penal Code, Golak Chandra Dutta had, in addition, been sentenced Under Section 323, Penal Code. Each of the convicts was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 on the charge Under Section 225, Penal Code or to Buffer one month's rigorous imprisonment. Golak Chandra was fined Rs. 50 I Under Section 323, Penal Code or in default to suffer 15 days' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THE story of the proseoution, in brief was that P.W. 3 Shanti Goswami informed the complainant Pabitra Kumar Das, P.W. 1, her neighbour at Abhoynagar, at about 7.30 p.m. on 16.10.1980, that she heard the sound of some commotion inside his dwelling hut. Pabitra Kumar took a lantern in his hand from the kitchen, where he was then taking meals, and proceeded in the direction of his dwelling hut. When he reached the verandah of that hut, he saw Nitu Dutta, the son of convict Bibhashini Dutta, coming out of the hut with a ahirt of hia (Pabitra Kumar's) in his hand. On seeing Pabitra Kumar, Nitu Dutta threw the shirt on the floor and made an attempt to escape. However, Pabitra Kumar succeeded in apprehending him and then raised an alarm. Harihar Goswami P.W. 2 happened to reach there and so helped Pabitra Kumar in keeping Nitu Dutta under custody. Instantly a large number of persons also appeared on the scene. When Pabitra Kumar and Harihar Goswami were taking Nitu Dutta, a short while after, to the police station and happened to pass close to the house of Nitu Dutta, which fell on their way, the latter's mother Bibhashini Dutta and his uncle Golak Dutta forcibly rescued him from the custody of Pabitra Kumar. Golak Chandra occasioned injuries on the head of Pabitra Kumar with the object of resounding Nitu Dutta from the latter's custody. Pabitra then lodged the complaint Ext. P.I at the police station and in course of time Nitu Dutta, Bibhashini Dutta and Golak Chandra were hauled up. Nitu Dutta, however, absconded during an early stage of the case and so the case against Bibhashini Dutta and Golak Chandra alone remained to be tried. They were ultimately convicted and sentenced in the manner and to the extent indicated above.
(3.) SHRI R. Ghosh, appearing for the petitioners, has not challenged the conviotion of Bibhashini Dutta. Qua her, the only prayer made is that she should be warned Under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of being punished by a formal sentence. The ground urged in support of that submission is that when she saw her son being taken to the polioe station she could not control the mother's impuhe in her to save her child and bo took steps to secure his release. If she could not control her impulse and took the law into her own hands, she must pay the penalty. It is to be emphasised that it is for the reason of her impulsive action that Nitu Dutta has remained a fugitive from justice thus far. In a case falling Under Section 225, IPC. I oonaider it wrong in principle to take recourse to the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in a Territory where the law and order situation is already causing headache to the authorities. Hence I, reject the petition on behalf of Bibhashini Dutta.
Respecting the other petitioner Golak Chandra, Shri R. Ghoah urges that hia conviction on either of the two charges is not justified by the evidence on record. At the same time Shri Ghosh concedes that while Bitting in revision it is not open to this Court to reassess the evidence for adjudging the correctness of the concurrent findings of fast reached by the two Courts below. Nevertheless, Shri Ghosh invites my attention to the statement oi P.W. 4 Suresh Chandra to support the contention that Golak Chandra may not have been aware that Nitu Dutta had been legally taken into custody by Pabitra Kumar. Suresh Chandra affirmed as P.W. 4 that when Pabitra Eumar reached near the house of Nitu Dutta, whom he had tied for being taken to the police station, the mother of the thief caught hold of the hand of Pabitra Eumar and began to drag him, and that at that time ' Golak Chandra reached there from the southern side and "assaulted the complainant with the torch and gave him several blows and snatched away the thief." The point raised by Shri Ghosh is that it is not the statement of P.W. 4 Suresh Chandra that Golak Chandra had any knowledge about what had led to the arrest of Nitu Dutta when he secured his freedom from the hold of Pabitra Kumar. I regret my inability to accept that argument as well founded. It is for the reasons that Suresh Chandra's statement that Pabitra Kumar had tied Nitu Dutta was not challenged in cross -examination, the mother of Nitu Dutta was endeavouring to BflOure his release when Golak Chandra reached there, and that a large number of persons had assembled at the place by the time Golak Chandra opened an assault on Pabitra Kumar. I feel safe in assuming from this set of facts that Golak Chandra could not have been oblivious of the situation under which Nitu Dutta bad been taken into custody. Anyway, it is not an ingredient of Section 225,1. P.C. that the accused should have knowledge of what had led to the arrest of the person rescued. That Section enacts inter alia that whoever rescues any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained for an offence shall be punished in the manner mentioned therein. It is plain on the words of the Section that it is not the requirement of law that the person who effects the rescue of another from lawful detention for an offence should be aware of the facts leading to that detention. Section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that any private person may arrest any person who in his view commits a non -bailable and cognizable offence, and, with, out unnecessary delay, shall make over any person be arrested to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the neatest police station. Since it is established in the present case that Nitu Dutta had committed an offence punishable Under Section 380, IPC. which is both cognizable and non bailable, Nitu Dutta was surely in lawful detention for an offence when he was rescued by the two petitioners while being taken to the police station . Consequently, all the ingredients of Section 225, IPC. are proved beyond doubt and as such the conviction of Golak Chandra on that charge is wholly justified.;