Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently rejected a plea by a man that a hospital cannot be considered as a human dwelling for the purpose offences under Sections 442 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah upheld conviction of a man accused of rescuing a convict from the hospital during his treatment.

The trial court had convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 460, 353, 225, 333, 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment.

The conviction and sentence of the petitioner had been upheld by the high court by its impugned judgment on July 29, 2024.

The incident was of the year 2005, wherein the allegation against the petitioner was that he had tried to rescue a convict who was undergoing treatment in a government hospital. 

Senior counsel Siddharth Dave, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the conviction under Section 460 IPC could not be maintained, as the hospital was not a ‘human dwelling’. 

"We do not agree with this submission of the senior counsel inasmuch as wherein humans are dwelling, be it in a hospital, the place is called a ‘human dwelling’ for the purposes of Sections 442 and 460 IPC," the bench said.

The court, however, noted that the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents wherein he had been convicted. 

"Under these circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The petitioner shall be released from jail, unless he is required in any other case," the bench said.

According to the prosecution, one accused Harjeet Singh on February 5, 2005 during his judicial custody complained of stomach ache due to appendicitis. He was referred to Regional Hospital, Nahan, for treatment. He was later taken to Zonal Hospital, Nahan under the Supervision of police. He was admitted in the hospital as indoor patient in medical ward on Bed No. 25. 

Harjeet Singh was handcuffed, and one end of the handcuff was tied with the waist belt of constable Kesar Singh who was also having its key. When he was lying on the bed at about 8.15 pm, then the appellant and other accused entered the ward and pointed a country-made pistol at the head of constable Kesar Singh. 

They also gave him beatings by demanding the key of handcuff and when another constable Jaswant Singh turned to make a call to the police line then he was also attacked by those persons on the head and nose with the country made pistol causing injuries to him and thereafter the key was forcibly taken and end of the hand-cuff was removed from waist belt and the all the accused escaped in a vehicle parked outside.

Case Title: Harmeet Singh Vs State of Himachal Pradesh