GANAPATHY VELAR Vs. MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai acquitting the respondents/ accused 1 to 3 in C. C. No. 370 of 1986 dated 13. 9. 1989. The facts which has given rise to the appeal are as follows: The appellant/complainant is a respectable landlord of Kadambarayapatti Village, Pudukottai District. On 25. 5. 1986. Thaipoosam Festival day, at about 5 p. m. when the appellant was in his house, the first respondent/first accused Murugesan, Sub Inspector of police Annavasal Police Station and the second respondent/second accused, rengaraj, Police Constable, came and told the appellant that the Deputy superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police instructed them to bring him to the Police Station. Since it was a festival day, the appellant replied he will come on the next morning. Respondents 1 and 2 did not heed to his request and insisted to accompany them to the Police Station at once. They further said they will bring him back in the same car which they had brought. Thereafter, the appellant accompanied them. The car went towards Perambur and when the appellant questioned them, he was informed that they had to take one chinnathambi, P. W. 2 also. After picking up Chinnathambi alias Subramani, P. W. 2, the car went to Ilupur Police Station. The first respondent went inside the police Station. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was not present and the circle Inspector alone was available.

(2.) THE Inspector of Police asked the first respondent why the appellant and P. W. 2 had been brought there, for which the Sub Inspector replied something in English which the appellant was unable to understand. THEreafter, the first respondent brought one Rangan from the lock-up of the police Station who was a K. D. He told appellant, Rangan had given some stolen gold jewels to them which they have to handover to the police. THE appellant and P. W. 2 denied the same. THEreafter the Sub Inspector of Police Respondent no. 1 took them to Annavasal Police Station. After reaching there, the first respondent ordered the appellant and P. W. 2 to be kept in the lock up without any dress. As ordered by the first respondent, the third respondent instructed them to remove the clothes which they obeyed. THE first respondent removed his waist-cord and then put them inside the lock-up. At about 10 or 10. 30 p. m. in the night, the first respondent, sub Inspector of Police, came inside the lock up where the appellant was kept and threatened the appellant to return the gold jewels, failing which treatment will be very severe, for which the appellant stoutly denied the receipt of jewels from Rangan. THEreafter, the Sub Inspector of Police left him in the lock-up room. THE appellant and P. W. 2 remained in the lock-up room throughout the night. Next day morning at about 6 or 6. 30 a. m. (26. 5. 1986) respondents 1 and 2 opened the lock-up and asked what they had decided, for which the appellant did not reply, but asked why the first respondent is ill-treating him by keeping in jail. THEreafter, respondents 1 and 2 beat the appellant indiscriminately. THE first respondent kicked him with boots on his legs. He also dashed the head of the appellant against the wall and the appellant became unconscious and fell down. P. W. 2 was beaten by all the three respondents with lathies. THEreafter, p. W. 2 was left in the lock up room stating they should return the jewels within one hour. After one hour at 7. 30 or 8. 30 a. m. the appellant and P. W. 2 were called outside the lockup room. THE appellant came out first. THE first respondent insisted to tell the truth or otherwise they will be beaten again. THE appellant replied if he was beaten again he will die. Coffee was brought by the third respondent which the appellant drank. THE appellant was brought out of the police station and was asked to sit near the wall in slanting position with the legs stretched. THE third respondent held the legs of the appellant, the second respondent held his hands tightly. THEreafter, a zinc pipe was laid on stretched legs of the appellant. THE Sub Inspector of Police stood on the zinc pipe holding the wall and tolled the pipe on the legs of the appellant. Unable to bear the pain, the appellant wailed. THEn the first respondent told respondents 2 and 3 that inspite of the above treatment the appellant had not stated anything, and instructed them to beat him with lathies and put in the lockup room. THEn respondents 2 and 3 beat the appellant with hands and the first respondent beat him with lathi on the thigh. THEreafter, he was handcuffed and was ordered to stand on a stool. A rod was put in between the handcuffs and after fixing the rod in the roof of the veranda, the stool was removed. THE appellant was compelled to hang in that position for 15 minutes till he became unconscious. THEreafter the appellant was laid down. Water was sprinkled by the third respondent on his face. THEreafter similar treatment was given to P. W. 2 and he was also hanged. THE first respondent beat P. W. 2 with lathi. Unable to bear the pain Chinnathambi cried. Even thereafter Chinnathambi was not released from the hanging position. After some time Chinnathambi was brought to the lockup. THEy were threatened that by next day they should make arrangements to give the gold jewels, failing which they would be sent to Palayamkottai Jail. THEn the appellant requested them to send information to his son and he will make arrangements to give jewels, to which the Sub Inspector of Police refused. He represented to the third respondent to send information to his son. At about 7 p. m. the son of the appellant Raju P. W. 3 and servant Palani P. W. 4, came to annavasal Police Station after searching in Ilupur Police Station. THE son on seeing the appellant in the, lockup room, cried. THE appellant told his son there is no use of weeping. He instructed him to go to the house and take the cash available in the house, purchase and bring 120 grams of gold. At that time, Sub Inspector came to the station. He instructed his son to bring the gold by afternoon.

(3.) ON a reading of the judgment of the lower Court, it is gathered that the following circumstances appearing in the evidence has led the chief Judicial Magistrate to dismiss the complaint filed by the appellant.