Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Queen-empress Vs. Muppan

Queen-empress vs Muppan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 23, 1895
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/778847

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Act XLV of 1860, Section 224--Escape from lawful custody. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Muppan

Legal References

Reported In
(1895)ILR18Mad401

Excerpt

penal code - act xlv of 1860, section 224--escape from lawful custody. - 1. we think the accused was rightly convicted. the custody of a prisoner does not necessarily come to an end because the custodian absents himself for a few minutes. a man legally arrested for an offence must submit to be tried and dealt with according to law. if he gains his liberty before he is delivered by due course of law, he commits the offence of 'escape.' it has been long established that even when the escape is effected by the consent or the neglect of the person that kept the prisoner in custody, the latter is no less guilty, as neither such illegal consent nor neglect absolves the prisoner from the duty of submitting to the judgment of the law (i russ., 5th edition, p. 567, roscoe, 11th edition, p. 453, and bishop's criminal law, 7th edition, section 1104). consequently in the present case the neglect of the police officer in absenting himself from the place where the accused was detained when he escaped does not affect the accused's guilt.2. we decline to interfere.

Full Judgment

1. We think the accused was rightly convicted. The custody of a prisoner does not necessarily come to an end because the custodian absents himself for a few minutes. A man legally arrested for an offence must submit to be tried and dealt with according to law. If he gains his liberty before he is delivered by due course of law, he commits the offence of 'escape.' It has been long established that even when the escape is effected by the consent or the neglect of the person that kept the prisoner in custody, the latter is no less guilty, as neither such illegal consent nor neglect absolves the prisoner from the duty of submitting to the judgment of the law (I Russ., 5th edition, p. 567, Roscoe, 11th edition, p. 453, and Bishop's Criminal Law, 7th edition, Section 1104). Consequently in the present case the neglect of the police officer in absenting himself from the place where the accused was detained when he escaped does not affect the accused's guilt.

2. We decline to interfere.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial