IPC Section 224 - Resistance Or Obstruction By A Person To His Lawful Apprehension

Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) provides for resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension. This Section refers to when some individuals, who are already facing charges or convicted of an offence; resist, obstruct, or attempt to escape from custody. It helps in ensuring that individuals cooperate with legal authorities while they are being taken into custody or detained.

Legal Provision Of IPC Section 224

“Section 224- Resistance Or Obstruction By A Person To His Lawful Apprehension—

Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction 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.”

IPC Section 224: Explained In Simple Terms

Intentional Resistance Or Obstruction

• Section 224 clearly covers events under which an individual intentionally resists or obstructs the law enforcement officers from apprehending or detaining them. The most important aspect is “intention”. An individual should be doing so deliberately and with full knowledge of his act for the application of Section 224.
• Section 224 does not apply if a person accidentally or unintentionally resists an arrest. Intentional acts such as pushing officers violently or running away from the scene are some obvious examples of resistance.

Lawful Apprehension

• The resistance or obstruction has to be against a lawful arrest. This means that the person resisting either gets arrested for a crime they have been charged with or gets detained for a crime they have been convicted of. The arrest must be lawful, that means, it has to be by a proper authority, done in accordance with the law.
• Section 224 does not apply to any unlawful or unauthorised arrest or detention. If an individual is unlawfully detained, then he will have other remedies available to him under law to challenge that action.

Escape Or Attempt To Escape From Custody

• Section 224 can also refer to cases where a person, who is in lawful custody, escapes or attempts to escape. It could include escape from a prison, an attempt to escape from police custody, or slipping away while being transported.
• Escaping from custody is considered to be a serious offence because it undermines the very process of law and rule of law.

Offence Committed Or Conviction

• Section 224 applies to individuals who have been accused of committing an offence or have already been convicted of committing a crime. A person may be resisting arrest for an offence alleged against him (and not proved in Court) or after conviction (when guilt is established).
• Section 224 would be applicable both to an accused awaiting trial, as well as convicted individuals awaiting or serving their respective sentences.

Explanation Attached To Section 224

• The Explanation provided under Section 224 clarifies an important point, that is, the punishment for obstructing or resisting arrest under Section 224 of IPC is separate and additional to the punishment for the actual offence for which the individual was being apprehended or detained. This prevents a person from forming an opinion that obstructing or escaping arrest might subject the person to no additional sanctions beyond their original charges.

Punishment For Violation Of IPC Section 224

The punishment for contravening IPC Section 224 is as follows:

• Imprisonment: Imprisonment of either description which may extend up to two years.
• Fine: The amount of fine is not mentioned under the Section. The amount will depend upon the discretion of the Court.
• Both: Imprisonment and fine

The punishment under Section 224 is in addition to the punishment for the original offence for which the individual was being apprehended or detained. Therefore, if a person is convicted of a crime, if found guilty under Section 224, will face extra punishment in addition to the punishment for the original offence.

For example: if a man is convicted for theft and sentenced to three years imprisonment, but while he was in custody during the trial or sentencing, he tried to escape. Subsequently, he will also receive another punishment under Section 224 for attempting to flee lawful detention.

Illustration Related To IPC Section 224

• Example 1: Resistance during Lawful Arrest: Ravi, is lawfully apprehended by police officers for robbery. If Ravi tries to resist the arrest by police officers by pushing or hitting them in an effort to avoid his apprehension, then he will be punished under Section 224 of IPC for resisting lawful apprehension.
• Example 2: Escape from Custody: Aman, has already been convicted of a criminal offence and is staying in a jail. If Aman breaks out from lawful custody or tries to run away while being transported from court to prison, then he would be liable under Section 224 of IPC for escaping from lawful custody.

Key Details Of IPC Section 224

Case Laws On IPC Section 224

State Of Orissa vs. Purna Chandra Jena (2005)

With respect to Section 224 of IPC, the Court held the following:

• Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code deals with two parts. The first is resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension. The second is escape from lawful custody.
• In order to prove the offence of escape or attempt to escape from custody, the prosecution has to prove four elements. The prosecution must prove that the accused was lawfully detained in custody and intentionally escaped from the custody.
• An acquittal in the case where an accused was arrested would not be sufficient to determine that the arrest was illegal or to negate a charge under Section 224 of the IPC. Even though the accused is acquitted in the case, the accused would be convicted of an offence under section 224 of the IPC if prosecution proves that the accused escaped from lawful custody.
• In the present case, the respondent was lawfully apprehended and, while in custody, escaped from police custody. The respondent argued that he left to answer the call of nature and then left because there were no police present is improbable. Thisarguement does not stand the ground by the fact that the respondent attempted to escape the next day after he had seen the police.
• Based on the facts and circumstances, the Court held that the respondent intentionally escaped from lawful custody. Therefore, the respondent was found guilty of the offence under Section 224 of the IPC.

Hanuman S/O. Anandrao Pendam (In Jail) vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O.(2019)

In this case, the Court held that Section 224 of IPC is a penal provision which provides an offence and its punishment. The Explanation added to Section 224 clarifies that both the offences (original offence and the offence under Section 227) are distinct and separate.

However, the Court held that Section 224 of IPC does not state whether the sentence for a subsequent crime should run consecutively or concurrently. The Court stated that such an aspect of the sentence is separately dealt under Chapter XXXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court further clarified that Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly provides the manner in which sentences for a subsequent offence should be executed. Subsection (2) of Section 427 mandates that where a person serving a life sentence is convicted of a subsequent offence, the subsequent sentence is required to run concurrently with the existing life sentence.

The Court emphasised that the Explanation to Section 224 of IPC cannot be superior to the statutory right of a convict who he is entitled under Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have sentences run concurrently.

Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa vs. The State Of Ap (2022)

In this case, it was held that where a convict is undergoing life imprisonment and further sentences are imposed on him for an offence under Section 224 of IPC, those additional sentences would run concurrently with the life sentence. This was derived from the interpretation of Section 427(2) of CrPC.

The Court clarified that a life sentence covers the entirety of the remaining natural life of the convict. Therefore, serving extra sentences after the expiration of a life sentence becomes logically impossible.

Hence, under Section 427(2) CrPC, under convictions accompanied with an order of a life sentence, the subsequent conviction sentences under Section 224 of the IPC will run concurrently with the life sentence. This will be applicable even in the absence of a specific order from the sentencing Court providing for such concurrency.

The interpretation adopted by the Court provides the importance of harmonious and reasonable understanding of Section 427(2) of CrPC. It helps in ensuring that the absence of express or clear directions regarding the concurrency does not unjustly prolong the detention of a convict beyond his life sentence.

Purpose And Rationale Behind IPC Section 224

The primary purpose of Section 224 of the IPC is to prevent anyone liable to be arrested or detained from obstructing or hindering the course of law. This helps in maintaining the authority of the legal system and ensures that individuals cooperate with the law enforcement officers.

Resistance or obstruction in the course of arrest and while in custody is a challenge to the rule of law and the ability of the State to serve justice. Thus Section 224 serves as a form of deterrence, where it provides for additional penalties on those who try to escape the reach of legal authorities.

Additionally, this provision ensures that individuals do not also evade any legal consequences through unlawful resistance or attempt to escape from custody. By making a punishment for obstruction or attempt to escape independent from the original offence, the law discourages every form of defiance at the time of arrest or in custody.

Conclusion

Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 contributes significantly toward upholding the integrity of judicial and law enforcement procedures. The penal provision against acts of resistance, obstruction, and escape at or after lawful apprehension or detention allows persons convicted or accused of offence not to breach the system of justice. This Section complements other provisions of IPC dealing with offences against public servants, resisting arrest, and escaping from lawful custody. Cooperation with law enforcement is essential for the effective functioning of the criminal justice system.

FAQs

What constitutes “lawful apprehension”?

Lawful apprehension means a person authorised by the law to make a lawful arrest or detain a person for an offence with which he is charged or convicted.

Whether Section 224 of IPC is applicable if the person is unaware of the charges?

Yes, Section 224 will be applicable even if the person is unaware of the charges. The only requirement is that the apprehension is lawful and the person intentionally resists or obstructs such apprehension.