S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED is petitioner in this revision against appellate order confirming his con viction under Section 224 IPC sentencing him to undergo R. I. for six months. ( 2 ) REVISION application was to be filed within 90 days. Stamp Reporter pointed out that there is delay of 197 days to condone which application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. Only ground is that petitioner is a poor man who could not know about dismissal of the appeal as he had gone away to Bihar to earn his livelihood and on return to village he contacted his Advocate and knew the result. Said petition having been sworn to by Advocate's Clerk was withdrawn to file a better petition. A fresh petition sworn to by petitioner has been filed on the self same grounds. When the said application came up for orders I was not prima facie satisfied that a sufficient cause has been made out. However, there being substantive sentence against petitioner. I called upon learned counsel to make submission on merits so that being convinced that there is merit either to set aside conviction or to modify the sentence, I shall liberally consider the question of condoning delay and dispose of the revision. ( 3 ) PETITIONER was prosecuted for an offence under Section 224 IPC Allegation against him is that on 27-9-1969, he was arrested in the village Solakudar being involved in murder of father of P. W. 1. After arrest he was kept in custody in the village. At about 8 P. M. , petitioner wanted to answer call of nature to make water. So he was taken out to a place at a distance being tied by a rope on his waist by P. W. 5 a constable who was holding one end of the rope. Petitioner untied the rope and escaped from custody. P. W. 5 raised alarm. In spite of search by every body present, whereabouts of petitioner could not be traced out and he could not be apprehended. P. W. 5 lodged FIR and after investigation, petitioner was charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 224 IPC. ( 4 ) ACCUSED pleaded not to be guilty and denied the charges levelled against him. ( 5 ) TO prove that accused was arrested and escaped out of lawful custody, prosecution exam ined six witnesses. P. W. 5 lodged FIR and after investigation, petitioner was charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 224 IPC. ( 4 ) ACCUSED pleaded not to be guilty and denied the charges levelled against him. ( 5 ) TO prove that accused was arrested and escaped out of lawful custody, prosecution exam ined six witnesses. P. W. 1 is informant in the murder case. P. W. 5 is informant constable in this case from whose custody accused escaped. P. W. 4 is another constable and P. W. 6 is the A. S. I. who are eye witnesses to depose about arrest and escape. P. W. 2 is a villager and P. W. 3 is the grama rakshi. Although P. W. 1 stated that he does not know about arrest of petitioner all others have stated about his arrest and escape. Trial court as well as appellate court have appreciated the evidence and found as a fact that petitioner was arrested and while in custody es caped. There is no reason to interfere with this finding of fact. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submitted that I. O. has not been examined in this case. Trial court has found that he is dead. Therefore, there was no scope to examine him and non-examination of In vestigating Officer in this case cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel submitted that no document disclosing arrest of petitioner has been proved in this case which is in normal circumstances would have been contemporaneous document to prove arrest of accused. It is no doubt true that contemporaneous documents reflecting arrest of accused would have been strong pieces of evidence. But absence of such documents would not be fatal when prosecution witnesses have not been suggested that any docu ment was prepared. If witnesses would have stated about existence of documents and would not have given explanation why they were not proved, the appreciation of evidence might have been different. Same is not the case. It is to be kept is mind that accused was arrested and was in custody of lawful authorities in village. Investigation of murder case was continuing when accused escaped from cus tody. Immediately information was lodged as per Ext. 1. Section 46 Cr. P. C. , explains the nature of arrest. Under Section 157 Cr. Same is not the case. It is to be kept is mind that accused was arrested and was in custody of lawful authorities in village. Investigation of murder case was continuing when accused escaped from cus tody. Immediately information was lodged as per Ext. 1. Section 46 Cr. P. C. , explains the nature of arrest. Under Section 157 Cr. P. C. an Investigating Officer is authorised to arrest. When allegation against accused was that he was involved in murder of father of P. W. 1 which is not disputed, arrest of petitioner is acceptable. 7-A Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1960 Orissa 23 The State v. Indra Padhan and submitted that in a case where arrest was not lawful, escape from custody would not be an offence. Order in the Sessions trial was brought to my notice which indi cates that petitioner was discharged because no prima facie case was found against him. It is submit ted that in a case where there is no prima facie case, arrest was illegal and, therefore, even if it is assumed that petitioner escaped, no offence is committed. ( 8 ) I am not able to appreciate the above conten tion. Merely because an accused was acquitted subsequently or discharged, his arrest at the initial stage cannot be held to be illegal or not lawful. When the First Information Report lodged by P. W. 1 dis closed that petitioner was involved in the offence of murder of his father. Investigation Officer proceed ing to the spot and being of opinion that petitioner is to be arrested had lawful authority to arrest peti tioner. Murder is a cognizable offence. Therefore, arrest of petitioner at that stage on 27-9-1969 was lawful. Petitioner escaped out of lawful custody. Thus, he committed offence under Section 224 IPC. Subsequent discharge from the charge of murder would not make the arrest unlawful. Decision re ported in AIR 1960 Orissa 23 (supra) is distinguish able. In the said decision, accused was arrested in a non-cognizable case. It was held that arrest not being lawful, escape from custody is not an offence. ( 9 ) ALL submissions of learned counsel on merits having failed, I am satisfied that conviction of peti tioner under Section 224 IPC is justified and calls for no interference. In the said decision, accused was arrested in a non-cognizable case. It was held that arrest not being lawful, escape from custody is not an offence. ( 9 ) ALL submissions of learned counsel on merits having failed, I am satisfied that conviction of peti tioner under Section 224 IPC is justified and calls for no interference. ( 10 ) MAXIMUM sentence for an offence under Section 224 IPC is two years. Offence in this case was committed in the year 1969. It is stated by learned counsel that after being arrested subsequently, petitioner remained as under trial prisoner for ten months till his discharge on 7-5-1987. He was an employee in Central Industrial Security force at Durgapur who has lost his job on being absent from duty on account of such detention in custody. It is stated that accused is father of six children. I have no reason not to accept the statements made at the bar from a responsible counsel which are not borne out from records. These facts lead me to come to conclusion that accused ought not to be called upon to serve his sentence remaining in jail custody. However, substantive sentence can not be avoided. In the circumstance of this case. I am inclined to reduce the sentence by directing that petitioner shall suffer imprisonment till rising of Court. On accused appearing in trial court to suffer the sentence, he shall be detained in Court has and shall be released when Court rises for the day. ( 11 ) SINCE I am interfering with the sentence, I condone the delay in presenting this revision petition. ( 12 ) IN result, revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. Revision allowed. .