Section 223 IPC: Escape from Confinement Negligently Suffered by Public Servant
Section 223 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealt with a public servant who was legally bound to keep a person in confinement but, through negligence, suffered that person to escape from confinement.
Section 223 IPC - statutory provision
Whoever, being a public servant legally bound as such public servant to keep in confinement any person charged with or convicted of any offence or lawfully committed to custody, negligently suffers such person to escape from confinement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Meaning and scope of Section 223 IPC
Section 223 applied where the accused was a public servant who, in that capacity, was legally bound to keep a person in confinement. The confined person could be charged with an offence, convicted of an offence, or otherwise lawfully committed to custody.
The distinguishing feature of the section was negligence. Unlike the neighbouring provisions dealing with intentional omission, intentional sufferance of escape or intentional assistance, Section 223 addressed an escape that the responsible public servant negligently suffered to occur.
Essential ingredients of Section 223 IPC
- The accused must be a public servant.
- The public servant must be legally bound, in that capacity, to keep the person in confinement.
- The person must be charged with or convicted of an offence, or lawfully committed to custody.
- The person must escape from confinement.
- The escape must have been negligently suffered by the public servant.
Punishment and CrPC classification under Section 223 IPC
| Legal point | Pre-BNS position |
|---|---|
| Punishment | Simple imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| Cognizable or non-cognizable | Non-cognizable |
| Bail | Bailable |
| Court competent to try | Any Magistrate |
Who could be liable under Section 223 IPC?
The section was directed specifically at a public servant having a legal duty to keep the person in confinement. Merely being a public servant was not sufficient; the statutory duty concerning the confinement of the particular person was an essential part of the provision.
Meaning of negligent escape
The statutory language required the public servant to have negligently suffered the escape. The section therefore focused on a failure to exercise the care required in performing the legal duty to keep the person confined. It did not use the intentional mental element found in Sections 221 and 222 IPC.
Who must have been in confinement?
The person who escaped could fall within any of the categories expressly stated in Section 223: a person charged with an offence, a person convicted of an offence, or a person lawfully committed to custody. The words extending the provision to a person lawfully committed to custody were inserted by Act 27 of 1870.
Section 222 and Section 223 IPC
Section 222 IPC addressed intentional omission to apprehend, intentional sufferance of escape or intentional assistance in escape by a public servant in relation to a person under sentence or lawfully committed to custody. Section 223 addressed negligent sufferance of escape by a public servant legally bound to keep the person in confinement.
Section 221 and Section 223 IPC
Section 221 IPC concerned intentional conduct involving a person charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence. Section 223, by contrast, expressly dealt with negligent escape from confinement. The required mental element is therefore an important distinction between the provisions.
Historical amendment
The words extending Section 223 to a person lawfully committed to custody were inserted by Act 27 of 1870, section 8. This amendment is reflected in the statutory text reproduced above.
Related IPC provisions
Related provisions include Section 220 IPC, Section 221 IPC, Section 222 IPC, Section 224 IPC, Section 225 IPC and Section 225A IPC.
This page describes the Indian Penal Code position before implementation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The law applicable to a particular matter depends on the relevant facts and date of the alleged conduct.