KOCHI: The escape of rape-murder convict Govindachamy from the high-security Kannur Central Prison has triggered sharp criticism over the failure in holding jail officials accountable.
Though Govindachamy was tracked down and arrested within hours, legal experts question why no case has been registered against those responsible for the security lapses.
While the Kannur Town police filed an FIR against Govindachamy under Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for escaping from lawful custody -- a charge that carries a maximum sentence of two years or fine or both -- they have not invoked provisions that hold public servants accountable in such cases.
Section 260 of the BNS clearly prescribes punishment for public servants who either intentionally allow a person in custody to escape or fail to prevent it. Punishment under this section can range from imprisonment of up to three years, with or without a fine, to imprisonment for a longer term — up to seven or even 14 years — depending on the severity of the original sentence of the escaped convict.
Experts say this legal provision exists to fix responsibility on officers in charge of custodial security, including instances where inmates’ escape is facilitated by negligence. Additionally, BNS Section 45 allows for the prosecution of individuals who abet or aid in the commission of a crime, even indirectly.
Former director general of prosecution T Asaf Ali said a case solely against Govindachamy serves little practical purpose. “Even if a chargesheet is filed, he can plead guilty, and the court may allow the sentence to run concurrently with his existing life sentence — essentially amounting to no additional punishment,” he pointed out.
He said the real issue is how the escape was possible and who enabled it, directly or otherwise. “It’s difficult to believe that a month-long escape plan went unnoticed in a high-security prison. For future deterrence, jail officials concerned must be held accountable and booked under Sections 45 and 260 of the BNS,” he said.