VADAMALAI Vs. SYED THASTHA KEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the appeal filed by the complainant-the respondent herein, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) By the impugned judgment the High Court found that the two accused persons were guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The conviction as recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Chinglepet, was set aside by first Appellate Court i.e. learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai Division. There were two appellants involved. Ranganathan (A-1) was Sub-Inspector of Police and the present appellant (A-2) was Head Constable. It was alleged that they had committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 384, 386 and 388 read with Section 34, IPC. The trial Court convicted them for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 342, IPC and in appeal their conviction was set aside and the first Appellate Court directed their acquittal.

(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The complainant was running a Gilt Shop in Madurantakam. On 10.5.1988 around 12.00 noon, Vadamalai (A2), the Head Constable, the present appellant came to the shop and asked the complainant to come to the Police Station, as he was wanted by the Sub-Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the complainant went to the Police Station. In the Police Station, Ranganathan (A1), the Sub-Inspector of Police enquired from a woman by the name Selvi in the Police Station about the complainant. Then the Sub-Inspector of Police asked the complainant as to what happened to the jewels sold by the said Selvi to him. The complainant said he neither received nor purchased any jewels from her. Then, Al beat him with lathi on the back of his neck, back, etc. and A2 also beat him with lathi on his left thigh, back etc. Thereupon, as directed by A1, A2 put marble on the palm of the complainant and the same was pressed with force. Despite the torture, the complainant maintained that he was innocent. He was detained in the Police Station for about four days illegally. In the meantime, telegrams were sent to the higher police officials about the conduct of these police officers. On 13.5.1988, the complainant was paraded hand-cuffed in the streets of Madurantakam. He was made to stand near the Mosque. He was asked by A1 to admit his having received the jewels from the said Selvi. The complainant still pleaded innocence stating that it being the month of Ramzan, he would not utter lies. Thereafter, he was brought back to the Police Station. On knowing this, his other three brothers came to the Police Station and requested A1 to release him. A1 stated to them that unless the jewels were returned, the complainant would not be released and they would also be detained. On that day also, the complainant was beaten. Unable to bear the cruelty and humiliation, his brothers went to the house of the complainant and obtained the jewels like Jemikki, tops, etc., of the complainant's wife and delivered the same to A1 on 13.5.1988. Then, the complainant was released. Thereafter, the complainant got admitted in the Madurantakam Government Hospital on 14.5.1988 and for ten days, he was hospitalised. Despite report to the higher officials about the incident, no action was taken against the accused officers. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused. Though the complaint was filed for various offences, charges were framed against A1 for the offences under Sections 342, IPC and 324, IPC against A2 for the offences under Sections 342 and 323, IPC. The trial Court convicted them and sentenced A1 to undergo RI for three months for the offence under Section 342, IPC and to undergo RI for 3 months with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 324 and sentenced A-2 to undergo RI for three months for the offence under Section 342 and RI for 2 months with a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 323. The appellate Court set aside the same and acquitted the appellant. Challenging the order of the trial Court the appeal was filed and the appellate Court directed acquittal of the appellant and the co-accused. The appellate Court recording the following findings to direct acquittal :