IPC Section 128 - Public Servant Voluntarily Allowing Prisoner of State or War to Escape

Whoever, being a public servant and having the custody of any State prisoner or prisoner of war, voluntarily allows such prisoner to escape from any place in which such prisoner is confined, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Share:
Non-bailable, Cognizable

Official Text

“Whoever, being a public servant and having the custody of any State prisoner or prisoner of war, voluntarily allows such prisoner to escape from any place in which such prisoner is confined, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Legal Analysis

Elements to Prove:

  • Status of Accused: The accused must be a public servant.
  • Status of Prisoner: The prisoner must be a "State Prisoner" or "Prisoner of War."
  • Custody: The prisoner must have been in the legal custody of the accused.
  • Voluntary Act: The accused voluntarily (i.e., intentionally or knowingly) allowed the escape.

Potential Defenses:

  • The most common defense would be to argue that the escape was not voluntary but either negligent (attracting §129) or occurred because the public servant was overpowered, deceived, or coerced.
  • The accused could also challenge the legal status of the escapee as a "State Prisoner" or "Prisoner of War."

Practical Examples

What Constitutes the Offense:

A prison official is bribed by a foreign intelligence agency to facilitate the escape of a captured spy (a State Prisoner). The official intentionally disables the alarm system for a 10-minute window, allowing the prisoner to flee. This is a "voluntary" act.

What Doesn't Constitute:

The same prison official, tired after a long shift, fails to double-check a cell door lock. The prisoner discovers the oversight and escapes. This would not be a voluntary act but a negligent one, punishable under the less severe Section 129.

Important Case Laws

Voluntary vs. Negligent Acts

While not common, this section is more relevant than the preceding ones. Cases would turn on the definition of "voluntarily." The key legal principle that courts would apply is the distinction between intent and negligence. The prosecution must prove a deliberate act or omission intended to cause the escape. For example, a case might involve analyzing CCTV footage to see if a guard deliberately turned away or left a gate unbolted at a specific time, as opposed to simply forgetting.

Punishment

Imprisonment for Life, or Imprisonment for up to 10 years, and a Fine

Related Information

Connected Sections:

This section is the first of a trio dealing with prisoners of state/war. It is directly contrasted with §129, which punishes the same public servant for the same escape if it happens negligently. It is also linked to §130, which punishes any person (not just a public servant) who actively helps such a prisoner escape or rescues them.

Procedural Aspects:

Prosecution requires sanction from the State Government. The case is triable by a Court of Session.

← Back to Indian Penal Code