CRL A/677/1997 of Vs on 28 November 2002

:J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the court was delivered by N.DHINAKAR, J.)

Criminal Appeal No.677 of 1997 is by A3, A6, A8 and A10and Criminal Appeal No.680 of 1997 is by A1 and A2, in Sessions Case No.99 of1993 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. Since both theappeals arise out of a single Sessions Case, they are disposed of by thefollowing common judgment.

2. In this judgment, the appellants in Crl.A.No.680 of 1997 will be referred to as accused 1 and 2 (A1 and A2) and the appellants in Crl.A.No.677of 1997 as accused 3, 6, 8 and 10 (A3, A6, A8 and A10) respectively in theorder they were arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge, for the sake ofconvenience. The appellants were tried along with 5 others, who wereacquitted and in this judgment, they will be referred to as A4, A5, A7, A9 andA11 in the same order as they were arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge.

3. The allegation against the appellants in the above two appeals and the acquitted accused is that they being members of a special team of policeofficers, formed to nab the culprits involved in various offences of theft inand around Chidambaram, wrongfully confined Nandagopal from the early hours of30.5.1992 till 2.6.1992 and during the course of such wrongful confinement,they caused injuries on Nandagopal by beating him with sticks and alsogang-raped Padmini, P.W.1, who is the wife of Nandagopal, during the saidperiod and later, prepared documents to make it appear that Nandagopal wasactually arrested at 5.30 p.m. on 2.6.1992, and thereby committed variousoffences.

4. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge against A3 to A5, A7 to

A9 and A11 under Section 343 IPC under Charge No.1 and under Charge No.2, A1and A2 were charged for the said offence with the aid of Section 109 IPC. A1to A5, A7 to A9 and A11 were charged under Charge No.3 framed under Section348 IPC and under Charge No.4, A1, A3, A4, A6 to A9 and A11 were charged underSection 324 IPC for causing injury to Nandagopal. Under Charge No.5, A1, A3,A4, A6 to A9 and A11 were charged under Section 330 IPC. Charge Nos.6 to 25,which were framed against various accused, ended in acquittal and therefore,we are not giving the details of the said charges. Under Charge No.26, A1,A3, A6, A8 and A10 were charged under Section 354 IPC for outraging themodesty of Padmini, P.W.1, by asking P.W.3, Kolanji @ Rajendran, who was aco-under-trial prisoner, to remove the saree of P.W.1. Charge Nos.27 and 28ended in acquittal and we are, therefore, not giving the details of thecharges. Charge No.29 was framed against A1 to A3, A6, A8 and A10 underSection 376(2)(a)(i)(ii)(iii)(b)(g) IPC for gang-raping on Padmini. UnderCharge No.30, A1, A3, A4, A6, A7 and A9 were charged under Section 218 IPC forpreparing incorrect records and under Charge No.31, A2, A5 and A10 werecharged under Section 218 IPC for preparing incorrect records by registering acase in Crime No.159/1992 in Annamalainagar Police Station under Sections 41and 102 Cr.P.C. against Nandagopal. Charge No.32 was framed against A1, A3,A4, A6 to A9 and A11 under Section 220 IPC for wrongfully confiningNandagopal, P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and Charge No.33 was framed underSection 220 r/w 109 IPC against A2, A5 and A10 for abetting the other accused.5. The learned Sessions Judge, while convicting A3 and A8 under

Charge No.1 as well as A1 and A2 under Charge No.2 for the offences underSections 343 IPC and 343 r/w 109 IPC respectively, did not impose any separatesentence upon them. Under Charge No.3 framed under Section 348 IPC, A1 to A3and A8 were convicted and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with a defaultsentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. Under Charge No.4, A1, A3 and A6were convicted under Section 3 23 IPC for causing injury to Nandagopal andeach one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.For the offence under Section 330 IPC framed under Charge No.5, A1, A3, A6 andA8 were convicted and each one of them was sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with a defaultsentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. A3, A6, A8 and A10 were convictedunder Charge No.26 framed under Section 354 IPC, and each one of them wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The learnedSessions Judge also found A3, A6, A8 and A10 guilty under Section376(2)(a)(i)(ii)(iii)(b)(g) IPC framed under Charge No.29 and sentenced eachone of them to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.5000/- with a default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment, while A1and A2 were acquitted of the said charge. Under Charge No.30, A1 alone wasconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 218 IPC, while A3, A4, A6,A7 and A9 were acquitted, and A2 was found guilty under Charge No.31 framedunder Section 218 IPC while A5 and A10 were acquitted. A1 and A2 weresentenced, each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years under ChargeNos.30 and 31 respectively. For the offence under Section 2 20 IPC framedunder Charge No.32, A1, A3, A6 and A8 were found guilty and sentenced each tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and under Charge No.33 framedunder Section 220 r/w 109 IPC, A2 alone was found guilty and on beingconvicted, he was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.Hence, the present appeal by the convicted accused.

6. The case of the prosecution shorn of unnecessary details can bebriefly summarised as follows:- During the relevant period, there were theftsin and around Mariappan Nagar and Annamamalainagar in Chidambaram Town andtherefore, the law enforcing agency decided to form a special party toapprehend the culprits, who are engaged in committing thefts. Accordingly, aspecial team was formed under P.W.29, who was working as Cirle Inspector ofPolice, Chidambaram Town Police Station. A1, the Sub-Inspector of Police ofChidambaram Town Police Station, A3, the Head Constable of Chidambaram TownPolice Station, A4, a police constable of Kumaratchi Police Station, A6, apolice constable of Killai Police Station, A7, a police constable of PuthurPolice Station, A9, a police constable of Kolathur Police Station, and A11, apolice constable of Sethiathope Police Station, were the other members of theteam. A8 and A10, during the relevant time, were working as police constablesat Annamalainagar Police Station. A2 was the Sub-Inspector in the said policestation. The said team was formed by the Assistant Superintendent of Police,Mahali.

7. P.W.1, Padmini, during the relevant period, was working as a sweeper at Government Hospital, Pennadam, and she was residing atKaliammamkoil Street in Annamalainagar. She was married to one Palanivel;but, she was separated from Palanivel and later, she developed intimacy withNandagopal, who was also working as a sweeper in a college at Annamalainagar.

P.W.1 and Nandagopal married at a temple and later, left for Madras only toreturn four months thereafter to Chidambaram. After returning from Madras,P.W.1 cam e to know that Nandagopal is already a married man and she alsostarted residing with Nandagopal along with his first wife Palaniammal. Whilethey were residing so, quarrels arose between P.W.1 and Palaniammal and acomplaint was given at Annamalainagar Police Station by the said Palaniammal.The police called the parties and advised them to live separately andtherefore, P.W.1 went away from her husband's house and took residence atKaliammankoil Street in Annamalainagar. Nandagopal used to visit herregularly and one such visit was on 29.5.1992.

8. On 29.5.1992, Nandagopal and P.W.1 were sleeping in the house andat about 3.00 a.m. on 30.5.1992, A3, A6 and A8 went there. A8 caught hold ofthe tuft of Nandagopal and P.W.1 questioned A8 for his behaviour. A8 informedP.W.1 that two persons are already in custody and her husband will be releasedafter enquiry. They took away Nandagopal from the house. P.W.1 pleaded withA3, A6 and A8 not to beat her husband. After the day-break, P.W.1 went toAnnamalainagar Police Station, which was nearer to the house of hermother-in-law. She took coffee to the police station, which was prepared inher mother-inlaw's house, with a view to give it to Nandagopal. She metP.W.8, who was working as a sweeper in the police station. She questionedP.W.8 as to why her husband is not let out and he informed her that theenquiry is yet to commence. P.W.1, therefore, went to meet her advocate, whowas residing at Chidambaram. The house of the advocate was found locked andtherefore, she met his clerk, P.W.9. She narrated to him as to whattranspired on the early hours and sought his help; but, P.W.9 sent her awaysaying that it being a Saturday and the following day being a Sunday, he willnot be able to do anything for the release of Nandagopal. P.W.1 was,therefore, returning and on the way, met A6 and A8. On seeing A6 and A8, shebecame panicky and once again, went to the house of the advocate and metanother clerk of the advocate, P.W.10, to whom, she narrated the facts. Shehas expressed her apprehension and the clerk asked her to stay in the house.After some time, she left the house of the advocate clerk, P.W.10, and reachedher house. She returned to P.W.10's house in the evening and met theadvocate, P.W.11, who was working as junior under one Venkatraman. This wasat 8.30 p.m. She narrated the incident to him and he advised her not to go toher house and asked her to sleep in somebody' s house. P.W.1 went to herneighbour's house and took her bed.

9. On 31.5.1992, which was a Sunday, Balaraman, the younger brotherof Nandagopal, came to the house and asked P.W.1 to take coffee to her husbandNandagopal. P.W.1 was reluctant to go to the police station, as she wasafraid of the police officers; but, Balaraman insisted her to go to the policestation to take care of her husband. P.W.1, therefore, went to hermother-in-law's house and her mother-in-law advised her to go to the policestation with coffee. P.W.1 went to the police station with coffee andrequested one of the police constables, who was seen by her, to give thecoffee to her husband. The police constable told her that her husband will belet off and also informed her that her husband was beaten in the night.P.W.1, while returning from the police station, met one Vijaya, who tried tobeat her, saying that her husband had also been taken by the police officers

at P.W.1's instance. At that time, P.W.1 saw A8 coming by that side andseeing A8, she started running. A8 commented that she is running because sheis afraid of him. At about 1.00 p.m. on the same day, A3 and A6 went to thehouse of P.W.1 and beat her on her buttocks. She was dragged to an auto,which was parked outside, and was pushed into it. When she was taken into theauto, she found P.W.5 and Nandagopal sitting inside with handcuffs. P.W.1also sat by their side. The auto went to Annamalainagar Police Station.P.W.1 was asked to enter the police station and she was beaten by A6.Thereafter, 4 or 5 police officers surrounded and beat her and as a result ofthe beating, her blouse was torn. Someone also pulled her blouse and she wastold that she will not tolerate any more beating and was asked to sit. Shesat down. Two women police constables came shortly thereafter and thinkingthat she will be let off, she informed them that she had taken oleander seeds.The two women police constables gave her water mixed with soap and tamarindand compelled her to drink. She took her bed at the police station along withthe two women police constables.

10. On 1.6.1992, after the day-break, two women police constableswent away from the police station and P.W.1 was given coffee by hersister-in-law's daughter. she also took idlies; but, she was not in aposition to talk. Nandagopal, seeing P.W.1, questioned her as to why she hadcome to the police station, when he is already being beaten by the policeofficers. P.W.1 pacified Nandagopal and told him that he will be let off.A6, seeing P.W.1 and Nandagopal talking with each other, pushed Nandagopalafter beating him, into the lock-up. She also saw A2, A3 and A5. P.W.1 wasgiven palatable food; but the food, which was given to Nandagopal, was foundto be poor in quality. Therefore, P.W.1 gave her food to Nandagopal and onseeing this, A1 beat P.W.1 with a lathi. On the evening of 1.6.1992, sheheard the police officers talking among themselves that Rs.50/ is to be givento a party and one of the police officers asked them as to why there should bea party. A police constable was seen whispering in the ears of the otherpolice officers. Thereafter, the police officer, who questioned others as towhy there should be a party, left the place, after telling them that they arealso people born with sisters. At about 8.00 p.m., Nandagopal was brought outand A6 suggested that someone must strip the saree of P.W.1. They brought outP.W.3 from the lockup and directed him to strip P.W.1's saree. P.W.3 refusedto do so and he was beaten by A1 and sent away to verandah. A3 stripped thesaree of P.W.1 and she was made to stand with inner skirt and blouse. A1, A3,A6, A8 and A10 stripped her saree as well as the blouse and made her naked.They also beat her saying that she must run. She fell down on receiving theblows. All the 5 police officers dragged her and kissed her. A10 beat her onher private part with a lathi, after using filthy language. P.W.1 requestedthe police officers not to beat her. Someone was seen entering the policestation to give a complaint and therefore, P.W.1 was advised not to raise hervoice. The police officers went to the front side of the police station andP.W.1 covered herself with the saree. Two women police constables came thereand to them, she narrated her harrowing experience. They told P.W.1 that shewill not be beaten thereafter. P.W.1 went and took her bed in a room, alongwith the two women constables.

brought coffee and on the evening, Nandagopal was taken out and brought backto the police station along with P.W.14, the sister of Nandagopal, and P.W.13,the husband of P.W.14. P.W.13 was questioned as to the availability of atape-recorder and he showed a bill. The police officers threatened him thathe is telling a lie and also informed him that they have already strippedP.W.1's saree and if tells a lie, the saree of his wife will also be stripped.They asked Nandagopal and P.W.13 to remove their shirts and after the removalof the shirt of Nandagopal, P.W.1 noticed injuries on Nandagopal's body. A1 ,A3, A6, A8 and A10 beat Nandagopal and later, P.Ws.13 and 14 were sent away.After the sunset, two women police constables came to the police station andone of the police officers at the police station asked them, whether they hadseen the film, 'Semparuthi' and thereby, suggested that they can go to thecinema. P.W.1 pleaded with the two women police constables to take her alongwith them. The two women police constables left the police station aftertelling P.W.1 that no harm will be caused to her. After the two women policeconstables left the police station, at about 10.30 p.m., Nandagopal wasbrought from the lock-up room to the verandah and P.W.1 was also taken there.Nandagopal was asked to lean on the wall and he was beaten. A6 pulled thesaree of P.W.1 and A10 pulled her blouse and skirt and she was made naked.She was also beaten and was pushed off. A2, thereafter, raped P.W.1 followedby A3, A6, A8 and A10 and all of them, at the time of committing rape, werewearing condoms. This gang-rape was in the presence of Nandagopal, who wasall the time pleading with the police officers not to cause any harm to hiswife. A6 beat the private part of the Nandagopal with a lathi and he felldown. He was asking for water. P.W.1 covering herself with the saree,attempted to give water to Nandagopal; but, the police officers surrounded andtold her that unless she gives kiss to everybody, she will not be permitted togive water to Nandagopal. P.W.1 was, thereafter, forced to give a kiss eachto all the police officers; but, she was not allowed to give water to herhusband as the tumbler, which she was carrying, was pushed away. The officersonce again wanted to commit rape and P.W.1 pleaded with them to leave heralone. P.W.1 fell at the feet of A6 and bit his leg. A6 kicked her. Onaccount of gang-rape, P.W.1 suffered injuries on her private part and on herbreast. She fell unconscious and on regaining consciousness, she found thatshe was scantily dressed. She wanted to find her husband; but, the policeofficers told her that her husband was already taken to court. P.W.1 wastaken out of the police station and made to board a van. She was then sent toChidambaram Town Police Station, where she was given breakfast and coffee.While she was at Chidambaram Town Police Station, the police officers left,leaving one woman police constable, who informed P.W.1 that as there is arioting, the police officers have gone out. She also informed P.W.1 thatsomeone was beaten to death at Annamalainagar Police Station. P.W.1 cried andshe was allowed to go out. P.W.1, on coming out of Chidambaram Town PoliceStation, boarded an auto near Mariamman temple and the auto-driver asked herwhether she is the wife of Nandagopal. When she repl ied in the affirmative,the auto-driver informed her that Nandagopal was beaten to death by the policeofficers and advised P.W.1 not to go there. P.W.1 went to court to find outwhether her husband was taken to court, where she heard people discussingabout the death of Nandagopal. The auto-driver took P.W.1 to the office ofthe Tahsildar, P.W.26. She informed the persons, who were there. They toldher that all the officers have gone out in connection with the death of

Nandagopal and asked her to take her seat. She went to Annamalainagar PoliceStation, where she found a huge crowd. She started shouting that they havenot only committed rape on her, but also murdered her husband. A10 waspresent there and he was beaten with slippers by P.W.1. P.W.21, the RevenueDivisional Officer of Chidambaram, who was present there, asked her as to whattranspired. P.W.1 started explaining her harrowing experience and when shecommenced her narration, she became unconscious. P.W.21 , therefore, sent herto the doctor along with two women and she appeared before P.W.6, CivilAssistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Chidambaram. P.W.6 examined her andshe complained of pain all over her body. She alleged that the policeofficers have misbehaved with her and that she was also beaten with a lathi onthe external genetalia. She was treated as an out-patient, as she was notwilling to be treated as an in-patient. P.W.1 returned to AnnamalainagarPolice Station and continued her narration. P.W.21 recorded the saidnarration by typing it, in which she affixed her signature and the saidstatement stands marked as Ex.P-1 in the case. P.W.1 later went to herfather-in-law's house, where she found the dead body of Nandagopal. Somepersons belonging to a political party also reached the house of herfather-in-law to whom, she narrated the whole episode. They advised her togive a petition and accordingly, she gave a petition, Ex.P-2, to P.W.21,requesting him to send her to the h ospital. She was, therefore, sent to thedoctor and P.W.6 once again examined her at about 11.30 p.m. on the basis ofthe requisition, Ex.P-9, issued by P.W.21. She was admitted in Gynecological Ward. Ex.P-9 is a copy of the accident register issued by the doctor. Thedoctor was informed that she was made to run without saree and that she wasalso asked obscene questions.

12. At about 7.00 p.m. or 7.30 p.m. on 4.6.1992, P.W.18, the Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Raja Muthiah Medical College Hospital,Annamalainagar, Chidambaram, examined her and to the doctor, P.W.1 informedthat she was raped by five policemen on the night of 2.6.1 992 atAnnamalainagar Police Station. On examination, the doctor found multiple nailscratches around the breast and on examining the abdomen, it was found to besoft. P.W.1 complained of severe pain in her private part and therefore,P.W.18 conducted speculam examination and noted multiple abrasions on vaginaand servix which is the end of uterus. She found discharge of foul-smellingfluid coming from vagina and took vaginal smear which was sent forexamination. The report was received and it indicated that the vaginal smearcontained plenty of pus cells and epithelial cells. The doctor issuedEx.P-19, her certificate, with her opinion that the multiple nail scratches onthe chest and the abrasions on the vagina may be due to gang-rape.

13. After the return from the hospital on 5.6.1992, P.W.1 gave apetition, Ex.P-3, to the District Superintendent of Police. The DistrictSuperintendent of Police sent a police constable to the house of P.W.1 andquestioned her; but, no action was taken on that. Later, the police officercame to her house and she narrated the whole incident, which was reduced intowriting. She affixed her signature in the complaint, which is Ex.P-4. Thesaid complaint was given to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mahali,

and on 7.6.1992, the said Assistant Superintendent of Police endorsed the saidcomplaint to P.W.31 , the Sub-Inspector of Police of Chidambaram Town PoliceStation. On the basis of Ex.P-4, a case in Crime No.162 of 1992 under Section34 1 and 376(b) IPC was registered and as the accused were police officers,the report was sent to the Collector. Ex.P-74 is a copy of the printed firstinformation. Investigation was taken up by P.W.34, the Inspector of Police ofBhuvanagiri, who was in-charge of Chidambaram Town Police Station.Immediately on taking up investigation, he altered Crime No.160 of 1992, whichwas registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., to one under Sections 302, 149, 343,and 341 r/w 34 and 109 IPC and the express report in the altered crime isEx.P-79. He also altered the Sections in Crime No.162 of 1992 by preparingexpress report, Ex.P-80, after adding Sections 343, 149, 114 and 109 IPC. Theexpress reports were sent to Judicial Magistrate, Chidambaram. P.W.34 reachedthe scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-81, and arough sketch, Ex.P-82, as regards Annamalainagar Police Station, which is thescene of occurrence. At 3.00 p.m. on 18.7.199 2, P.W.34 arrested A1 to A5and they were sent to court for remand on 19.7.1992.

14. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.36, Inspector of Police, C.B.,C.I.D. On taking up investigation, P.W.36 seized the saree,inner skirt and the blouse produced by P.W.1, which were marked as M.Os.1 to 3in the trial court, under Form 95, which is Ex.P-52. He also sent M.Os.6 and7 seized by P.W.34, to Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram. He sent 10material objects to the said Magistrate under Ex.P-66. At 7.30 p.m. on4.9.1992, P.W.36 arrested A6 and at 1.0 0 p.m. on 5.9.1992, A7 was arrestedand they were sent to court for remand. He issued a requisition to theJudicial Magistrate for conducting test identification parade.

15. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.22, Judicial Magistrate, Portnovo, conducted test identification parade in respect of A1 to A5 on13.8.1992. P.W.1 correctly identified A1, A2 and A3; but, she could notidentify A4 and A5. Ex.P-31 are the proceedings prepared by him. At the timeof identification parade, the accused informed the Judicial Magistrate thatthey were already shown to the witness. On 14.8.1992, another testidentification parade was conducted by him in respect of A6, A7, A8 and A9 andP.W.1 correctly identified A6 and A8. The proceedings prepared by the learnedMagistrate are Ex.P-28. The learned Magistrate also conducted testidentification parade as regards A10 and A11 on 16.11.1992. P.W.1 could notattend the identification parade as she was not well since she was sufferingfrom chest pain. A memo Ex.P-30 sent by her was recorded. But, the otherwitnesses, who appeared on that day, could not identify the accused. P.W.2 3,Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram also conducted a test identificationparade in respect of A1 to A5 with a view to enable P.W.2 to identify. Heidentified A3 and A4 and the proceedings are Ex.P-40.

16. In the meantime, on the orders of the High Court, investigation was taken up by P.W.37, who was then the Superintendent of Police, C.B.,C.I.D.The investigation was also monitored by the High Court. On 29.7.1992, P.W.37proceeded to Chidambaram and visited Annamalainagar Police Station and shereturned to Madras on 30.7.1992, as she was not able to record the statementof P.W.1, since she was not available. On 7.8.1992, P.W.37 examined P.W.1 and

recorded her statement and on 11.8.1992 and she went to Chidambaram tocontinue her investigation and in Chidambaram, she examined P.Ws.3 to 5 and 14and recorded their statements. P.Ws.3 to 5 were sent for medical examination.On 12.8.1992, she examined P.Ws.6, 8, 13, 16, 18 and others and theirstatements were recorded. A saree, a petticoat and a blouse collected byP.W.37, were sent for chemical examination. She examined P.Ws.2, 12, 34 andsome others and recorded their statements. M.Os.6 and 7 produced by theInspector of Police, Subbannan, were seized and they were sent to court foranalysis. She also requested the services of a scientific assistant fromCuddalore for inspecting the scene of occurrence. On 14.8.1992, she examinedP.W.19 and others. On 15.8.19 92, she examined P.W.32 and on 26.8.1992,P.Ws.9, 10 and 11 were examined and their statements were recorded. P.Ws.20and 21 were questioned and their statements were recorded on 29.8.1992. On22.9.1992, she further examined P.W.2 and on 23.9.1992, P.W.18 was furtherquestioned. P.W.37 also questioned P.W.16, Civil Assistant Surgeon,Government Hospital, Chidambaram, who conducted post-mortem on the body ofNandagopal on the requisition issued by P.W.21, the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, and obtained the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-10, in which thefollowing injuries are found noted:-

1. A rope like ligature mark centre of neck encircling obliquely upwards.Right to left neck with knot like mark on right neck. (Size about ½" in width– Rope mark). Middle lateral aspect. Underlying skin dry parchment incolour.

2. An abrasion 1 x 1 cm left cheek.

3. An abrasion 3 x 1 cm right hip anterior.

4. An abrasion 2 x 1 cm left leg middle anterior.5.An abrasion 3 x 1 cm right leg middle anterior.6.An abrasion 2 x 1 cm left arm shoulder posterior lower.7.An abrasion 2 x 1 cm right arm shoulder posterior lower.

8. An abrasion 2 x 1 cm left elbow antero-medial.

9. An abrasion 2 x 1 cm right elbow posterior lower.

10. An abrasion 3 x 1 cm right scrotum lower antero-lateral. No underneathhaemotoma injuries are ante-mortem in nature.11.Tongue bitten in between the teeth partially protruded outside.

The post-mortem certificate contains the final opinion of the doctor thatNandagopal died of asphyxial death due to atypical hanging about 10 to 24hours prior to post-mortem.

17. On 1.10.1992, on receipt of a Government Order for a secondmedical opinion, the body of Nandagopal was exhumed in the presence of P.W.26.The body was subjected to further post-mortem. D.W.2 and his team, who issuedEx.D-16, the post-mortem certificate, opined that the death was due tosuicidal hanging. The accused were sent for potency test and after completingthe investigation, the final report was filed against the accused on18.11.1992.

18. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on theincriminating circumstances appearing against them and they denied thecircumstances. The accused examined D.W.1, a court clerk, to show that one Balakrishnan voluntarily helped P.W.1, as a criminal case was pending againsthim on an allegation that he attacked police officials. The accused alsoexamined D.W.2, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur, who conducted the second post-mortem onthe body of Nandagopal, which was exhumed, to show that the death ofNandagopal was due to suicidal hanging and not due to homicidal violence.

19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused in boththe appeals contend that since the said Balakrishnan was involved in acriminal case on the allegation that he has beaten the police officers, thewhole case was shaped at his instance, by P.W.1 and if there had been agang-rape on her by the accused on the night of 2.6.1992 , she would havementioned the said fact to P.W.6, the doctor, before whom she appeared, aftershe was sent there by P.W.21, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram. It ishis further submission that since P.W.6 did not find any external injury onP.W.1, there could not have been a gang-rape on the night of 2.6.1992 and thatEx.P-1 given by her is bereft of many details and the evidence of P.W.1 incourt is an improvement on her earlier version given to the investigatingagency and under the above circumstances, the accused are to be acquitted.

20. The Special Public Prosecutor, per contra, contends that Ex.P-1,which is the statement given by P.W.1 to P.W.21, cannot be easily brushedaside. In any event, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that she was gang-raped onthe night of 2.6.1992 and her evidence is also supported and corroborated byother particulars as brought out through the other witnesses. We have perusedthe entire recorded evidence, which was read to us, and have also given ouranxious consideration to the rival contentions.

21. It is the case of the prosecution that Nandagopal was taken fromthe house at 3.00 a.m. on 30.5.1992 by A3, A6 and A8 and when questioned byP.W.1, who was present there, she was informed that he is being taken for someenquiry. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W.1 went to thepolice station taking coffee for her husband on 2.6.1992 and that she wasdetained at the police station and gang-raped on that night, after the twowomen police constables have left for a cinema theatre to see a movie.According to the prosecution, on the morning of 3.6.1992, P.W.1 wastransferred from Annamalainagar Police Station, where she was gang-raped, toChidambaram Police Station and while she was at the police station, she cameto know about the death of a person at Annamalainagar Police Station andtherefore, she left the police station only to be informed by an auto driverthat her husband is dead and thereafter, she went to the court and later tothe office of the Tahsildhar and then to Annamalainagar Police Station, whereshe met P.W.21, the Revenue Divisional Officer, to whom she gave a statement,Ex.P-1. The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that on reachingAnnamalainagar Police Station, she found a huge crowd and also several policeofficers standing there and A10 was one among them. On seeing A10, P.W.1 beathim with slippers shouting that the police officers have not only raped her,but also murdered her husband. P.W.1 was questioned by P.W.21 and shenarrated the incident, which was typed. After commencing her statement, shecould not continue as she was feeling giddy. She was, therefore, sent to the

doctor, P.W.6, along with two women. She appeared before P.W.6 at 2.00 p.m.and to the doctor, she alleged misbehaviour by the police. Though the doctoradvised her to get herself admitted, she refused and returned toAnnamalainagar Police Station and continued with her narration. In the saidstatement, Ex.P-1, which was narrated to P.W.21, she has given necessarydetails as regards the incidents, which happened between 3.00 a.m. on30.5.1992 and the time, she met P.W.21.

22. The contention of the learned counsel is that Ex.P-1 does not contain all the graphic details of the harrowing experience of P.W.1, whichshe had given in court and there are omissions in Ex.P-1. According to him,in her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that three police officers came to the houseon the early hours of 30.5.1992 and took her husband, whereas in herstatement, Ex.P-1, she has stated that about 1 0 police officers came andremoved her husband Nandagopal. The learned counsel also submits that thoughP.W.1 has, in her evidence, claimed that the police officers have used condomswhile they gang-raped her, she did not mention the said fact in the statement,Ex.P-1. The learned counsel also submits that P.W.1 did not mention about hermeeting the advocate clerk, P.W.9, and on the contrary, she has stated in herstatement, Ex.P-1, that she went to the office of the advocate and met him,which is contradictory to the present version given by her in court. Thelearned counsel further submits that P.Ws.9 and 10 have stated that P.W.1 metthem on 29.5.1992, whereas the present case of the prosecution is that theywere met by P.W.1 on 30.5.1992. To say the least, the above omissions andcontradictions, on which the learned counsel has placed reliance, are tootrivial in nature and they do not affect the substratum of the prosecutionversion. The fact remains that on the early hours of 30.5.1992, Nandagopalwas taken from the house and P.W.1 was present at that time. The questionwhether Nandagopal was taken by three police officers or by 10 policeofficers, does not matter and it also does not matter whether she met theadvocate or his clerk on 30.5.1992. The evidence of P.W.1 and the statement,Ex.P-1, indicate that Nandagopal was taken away from his house on the earlyhours of 30.5.1992 and P.W.1 was taking steps to get her husband released fromthe police station, by meeting the advocate and his clerks on 30.5.1992. Inour view, the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10 that P.W.1 met them on 29.5.1992 couldonly be on account of lapses in their memory, since it is nobody's case thatNandagopal was taken away by the police officers on 29.5.1992. We do notattach much importance to the contradiction as to the date given by P.Ws.9 and10. A perusal of Ex.P-1 indicates that she has mentioned the necessarydetails. She has also mentioned in the said statement that she was raped bythe police officers and concluded it by saying that her husband could not havecommitted suicide and he must have been murdered. She has also requested theauthorities to take action against those who are responsible for committingthe murder of her husband on that day. This plea of P.W.1 in the statement,Ex.P-1, gives an insight as to the state of mind of P.W.1 at the time she gavethe said statement to P.W.21.

23. It is to be remembered that after P.W.1 was brutally gang-rapedon the night of 2.6.1992 at Annamalainagar Police Station, she was transferredin a van to Chindambaram Town Police Station on the morning of 3.6.1992, whereshe came to know about the death of a person at Annamalainagar Police Station.

After coming out of Chidambaram Town Police Station and on seeing P.W.10 inthe crowd, who was standing in front of Annamalainagar Police Station, sheslapped him with slippers by shouting that they have not only raped her, butalso committed the murder of her husband. So, P.W.1, at that time, was underthe impression that her husband was murdered by the police officers andtherefore, she was bent upon giving details as regards the attack onNandagopal and the statement, Ex.P-1, was given to P.W.21 not with a requestto take action against the persons who are responsible for gangrape; but, thesaid statement was given with a request to bring those who are responsible forthe murder of Nandagopal to book. In the above situation, one cannot expectP.W.1 to give the graphic details of gang-rape committed by the men in uniformin the police station on the night of 2.6.1992.

24. In the above background, when we look at the evidence of P.W.6,we do not find fault with P.W.1 for not informing him that she was gang-raped.The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that though P.W.1 did not allege gang-rapeat that time, she, in fact, gave the outline of her suffering by telling themedical officer that the police officers misbehaved with her. The word'misbehaviour' used by P.W.1 is only an euphemism for rape, since at thattime, P.W.1 was more particular to bring the police officers responsible forthe death of her husband to book and her intention was not to seek actionagainst the police officers for the gang-rape. P.W.6 has, in his evidence,also stated that though he advised P.W.1 to admit herself in the hospital, sherefused to do so and therefore, she was treated as an out-patient. Noimportance can be attached to the evidence of P.W.6 that he did not find anyinjury on P.W.1. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that when hewanted his staff lady nurse Susheela Rajarajan to examine her genital part, itwas contended that there is no external injury on the genital part, whichmeans P.W.1 was not willing to subject herself for thorough examination as shewas more interested in going back and meeting the Revenue Divisional Officer,P.W.21, to give the details as to what transpired at the police station.P.W.6 has, in fact, admitted that the staff lady nurse Susheela Rajarajan wasasked by him to examine P.W.1 thoroughly in his presence, which means P.W.1could not have been subjected to thorough examination by the lady in thepresence of P.W.6, who happens to be a male. Therefore, no importance can beattached to the evidence of P.W.6 that there was no complaint of rape on her,by P.W.1.

25. P.W.18, the doctor, who examined P.W.1 on 4.6.1992, has, in herevidence, stated that she found several multiple nail scratches on the chestand abrasions on the vagina and that scratches and abrasions on the chest andthe vagina could have been on account of gang-rape. She also told the medicalofficer at that time that she was gangraped by 5 policemen on the night of2.6.1992. In the statement, Ex.P-1 , P.W.1 has also mentioned about thegang-rape committed on her, though she did not give all the graphic details.The statement of P.W.1 given at the earliest opportunity to P.W.21, theRevenue Divisional Officer, before she could not get any help or advice fromany quarters, also shows that she was raped on the night of 2.6.1992.Therefore, the minor omissions and contradictions found between her evidenceand Ex.P-1 do not affect the prosecution version that P.W.1 was gangraped atAnnamalainagar Police Station on the night of 2.6.1992.

26. P.W.1, when examined in court, stated that at 3.00 a.m. on 30.5.1992, A3, A6 and A8 took away her husband and that she later went toAnnamalainagar Police Station and met P.W.8, a sweeper, who told her that herhusband will be released after the enquiry. Though P.W.8 was examined tocorroborate P.W.1, he turned hostile; but, he has admitted that he was workingas a sweeper at the police station on the relevant date. The evidence ofP.W.1 that thereafter, she was taking steps to get her husband Nandagopalreleased from the custody of the police, is supported by P.W.9, who was theclerk of the advocate. Both P.Ws.9 and 10 have stated that P.W.1 sought theirhelp to get her husband released and P.W.10 informed that nothing could bedone as 30.5.1992 happens to be a Saturday and 31.5.1992 is a Sunday. It wason 31.5.1992, she was taken to the police station in an auto, in which shealso found P.W.5 and Nandagopal. This evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated byP.W.15, who has, in his evidence, stated that he was an auto-driver in themonth of May and June, 1992 and about 5 years prior to the date of his givingevidence in court, he had taken two accused and police officers in his autoand that the police officers recovered two ceiling fans at Gandhinagar andthereafter, they went to Thiruvakkulam and took a woman in the auto toAnnamalainagar Police Station. At the police station, according to P.W.1, shewas surrounded by 4 or 5 persons and her blouse was pulled and torn. She hasfurther deposed that in order to escape from the custody of the police, shehas informed the two women police constables, who had come there, that she hasconsumed oleander seeds and the two women police constables made her drinkwater mixed with soap and tamarind. She took her bed in a room at the policestation, along with the two women police constables. On the morning of1.6.1992, the two women police constables left the police station andthereafter her husband was beaten and A6, after beating her husband, pushedhim into the lock-up, where P. Ws.2, 3 and 5 were also seen. She has furtherstated that since the food supplied to her husband was poor in quality, shegave her food, which was given to her, to which A1 beat her. It is herfurther evidence that the police officers were seen whispering amongthemselves and when one police officer asked as to what is happening, he wasinformed that for a party to be conducted on that night, Rs.50/- is to becollected and the said police officer left the police station after askingthem as to whether they have sisters at home. At about 8.00 p.m., accordingto P.W.1, Nandagopal was brought out of the lock-up and P.W.3 was asked topull her saree, to which P.W.3 refused and for that, A1 beat him. Thereafter,A3 pulled her saree and later, her inner skirt and blouse were also removedand she was made to stand naked. According to her, she was made to run andeach police officer gave her a kiss and A10 gave a blow on her private partcausing an injury. She informed this incident to the two wom en policeconstables, after their arrival; but, they told her that she will not besubjected to such cruelty any more. According to P.W.1, on the morning of2.6.19 92, coffee was brought to her by her sister-in-law's son and herhusband was taken out and he was brought later along with P.Ws.13 and 14.P.Ws.13 and 14 were also questioned about a tape-recorder and when theypleaded ignorance, the officers threatened P.W.13 that the saree of his wifewill also be removed as they removed the saree of Padmini, P.W.1. P.W.1 alsonoted injuries on the body of her husband. Her evidence that P.Ws.13 and 14were brought to the police station is supported by the two witnesses.According to P.W.1, at about 10.30 p.m. on 2.6.1992, her husband Nandagopal

was brought out of the lockup to a room and she was also taken there and afterA6 and A10 removing her clothes, she was pushed down. She has further deposedthat she was raped by A2, A3, A6, A8 and A10 in the presence of her husband,in spite of the pleadings of her husband not to cause any harm to his wife.After she was raped, she fell down and Nandagopal, who was also losing hisconsciousness, was asking for water and when P.W.1 wanted to give water, shewas prevented by the accused, who put a condition that if she wants to givewater to her husband, she must kiss each one of them. P.W.1, was, thereafter,forced to give a kiss to each of the police officers; but, still she wasprevented from giving water to her husband by the accused, who pushed away thetumbler, which was in her hand. A6 wanted to rape her once again. P.W.1pleaded with him not to do so and fell at his feet. She also bit his legs andA6 kicked her.

27. On the morning of 3.6.1992, she was removed to Chidambaram TownPolice Station and later, on coming to know of the death of a person atAnnamalainagar Police Station, came out the police station and gave astatement, Ex.P-1 to P.W.21 at Annamalainagar Police Station. The aboveevidence of P.W.1 is in consonance with her earlier statement, Ex.P-1, givenby her to P.W.21, the Revenue Divisional Officer. Of course, Ex.P-1 lacks allthe details, which she has mentioned in her evidence; but, as we have alreadystated, one is to consider the state of mind of P.W.1, when she gave the saidstatement to P.W.1. It would have been difficult for P.W.1 to travel down thememory lane when she was examined by P.W.21 and narrate all the gory incidentsin detail. She could have been in a position only to give the bare detailsregarding the illegal detention of her husband from 3.00 a.m. on 30.5.1992,the torture and ill-treatment meted out to her husband at AnnamalainagarPolice Station, where he was detained, till his death and the gang-rapecommitted on her by the a ccused on the night of 2.6 .1992. These importantdetails are found mentioned even in Ex.P-1, which is the earliest document inpoint of time, given by her, when she had no advice or help from any quarters.The present evidence is in tune with the earlier statement given by P.W.1 andin view of the above, it is impossible for this court to hold that P.W.1 wastutored by Balakrishnan and Jhansirani, to give false evidence in courtagainst the police officers, merely on the ground that Balakrishnan had acriminal case pending against him for the alleged assault on police officers.We, therefore, reject the defence theory as brought out by way of suggestionsand through the defence witness, D.W.1.

28. On the contrary, as we have stated earlier, P.W.1's evidence isalso supported and corroborated by the other materials and the recordedevidence. She also identified the accused except A10 in the testidentification parades. A10 was not identified in the test identificationparade not because she was not in a position to identify, but she could notcome to the identification parade on the day when it was conducted, as she wasnot well. The fact that A10 was not identified at the test identificationparade by P.W.1, cannot be a ground to reject her evidence, when we taken intoconsideration the statement made by her to P.W.21 that when she went to thepolice station, she saw A10 in the crowd and she beat him with slippers. IfA10 was not really responsible for the acts and if P.W.1 was not in a positionto identify him, she could not have beaten him on the evening of 3.6.199 2

with slippers, when she saw him at Annamalainagar Police Station. Theevidence of P.W.1 that she saw A10 at Annamalainagar Police Station and thatshe beat him with slippers clearly shows that on seeing A10, she immediatelyrecognised him as one of the persons, who not only committed gang-rape,joining with the other accused, but also beat her husband and caused injuriesand it was he, who actually beat her on her private part, as could be seenfrom her evidence. In fact even in Ex.P-1, she has mentioned the name of A10as Karunanidhi and therefore, there cannot be any difficulty for her to haveidentified A10 when she saw him at Annamalainagar Police Station. Further, itwas A10, according to P.W.1, who used abusive and filthy language while shewas at the police station in the custody of the police. Therefore, theabsence of P.W.1 in the test identification parade conduced by P.W.22 is not aground to reject the prosecution theory that A10 was one of the persons, whocommitted gang-rape by joining with the other accused. We, therefore, acceptthe evidence of P.W.1, which is not only supported by other materials, butalso by the medical evidence and other circumstances, which we have extractedabove.

29. Once we accept the evidence of P.W.1, there cannot be anydifficulty for us to come to the conclusion that P.W.1 was gang-raped and A3,A6, A8 and A10 were rightly convicted under Charge No.29 framed under Section376(2)(a)(i)(ii)(iii)(b)(g) IPC, and that there is every justification for theconviction of A3, A6, A8 and A10 for the offence under Section 354 IPC framedunder Charge No.26. As the evidence of P.W.1, which is supported by thedoctor, P.W.16, who conducted post-mortem on the body of Nandagopal, clearlyshow that Nandagopal was beaten with lathis and sticks at the police station,the learned Sessions Judge was justified in convicting A1, A3 and A6 underSection 323 IPC under Charge No.4. Since the evidence of P.W.1 indicates thatNandagopal was taken into custody at 3.00 a.m. on 30.5.1992 and his arrestwas shown as if he was arrested at 5.30 p.m. on 2.6.1992, it is to be heldthat after the apprehension of Nandagopal, he was detained and wrongfullyconfined at the police station. Therefore, the conviction of A1, A2, A3 andA8 under Charge No.3 framed under Section 348 IPC is correct and we uphold thesame. As Section 348 IPC takes within its wings the offence under Section 343IPC, the conviction of A1, A2, A3 and A8 under Charge Nos.1 and 2 are alsoconfirmed. The recorded evidence shows that Nandagopal was detained in orderto extract a confession to show detection of crimes and therefore, theconviction of A1, A3, A6 and A8 under Charge No.5 framed under Section 33 0IPC is also justified. Since A1, A3, A6, and A8 have been convicted underSection 330 IPC and each one of them was sentenced to suffer three yearsrigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with a default sentenceof one year rigorous imprisonment, the sentence of imprisonment imposed uponA1, A3 and A6 under Section 323 IPC framed under Charge No.4 for causinginjury to Nandagopal, cannot be maintained, though the conviction can beconfirmed, in view of Section 71 IPC. We, accordingly, while confirming theconviction of A1, A3 and A6 under Section 323 IPC under Charge No.4, set asidethe sentence alone, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed uponA1, A3, A6 and A8 under Section 330 IPC as framed under Charge No.5.

30. A1 and A2 stand convicted under Section 218 IPC and as we havealready stated, A1 was the Sub-Inspector of Police of Chidambaram Town Police

Station and A2 was the Sub-Inspector of Police of Annamalainagar PoliceStation. The entire occurrence took place within the premises ofAnnamalainagar Police Station and admittedly, A2 was the Station House Officerof the said police station during the relevant period. If an occurrence takesplace within the premises of a particular police station, it could not havehappened without the knowledge of the Station House Officer of that particularpolice station and in the present case, Nandagopal could not have beendetained at the police station without the knowledge of A2. It is notpossible for A2 to plead ignorance that he was not aware of the detention ofNandagopal at the police station from the early hours of 30.5.1992 till he wasshown arrest on the evening of 2.6.1992. It was he, who registered the crimeagainst Nandagopal under Sections 41 and 102 Cr.P.C. at 7.3 0 p.m. on2.6.1992 and the first information report is Ex.P-77. The said firstinformation report came to be registered on the basis of a report submitted byA1, who has, in his report, stated that Nandagopal was taken into custody at5.30 p.m. on 2.6.1992 and the special report of A1 is Ex.P-76. Along withthe report, A1 also produced a mahazar, Ex.P-18, purported to have beenprepared by him at 5.30 p.m. on 2.6.1992, showing the alleged recovery of twoceiling fans and parts of another ceiling fan. As we have already observed,A2 being the Station House Officer of Annamalainagar Police Station, he shouldhave been in the know of things as to what was transpiring at the policestation and even if it is to be stated that he was not privy to the offence ofgang-rape, it cannot be said that he was not even aware of the illegaldetention of Nandagopal from the early hours of 30.5.1992 . It is not hiscase that during the period between 30.5.1992 and 2.6.1992, he did not visitthe police station and he was detailed for duty at some other place and underthe above circumstances, a presumption is to be drawn against him that he musthave gone to the police station in connection with his duty everyday and it ispreposterous for this court to hold that Nandagopal was detained in thelock-up without his knowledge. Therefore, it is clear that A2 was aware ofthe presence of Nandagopal in the lock-up and any Station House Officer, whodischarges his duty honestly and sincerely, would have asked the policeofficers as to why he was brought and kept in the lock-up. If the officer hadbeen acting honestly, he would have registered a crime if any offence is madeout against Nandagopal or would have sent him away from the lock-up. He didneither. He permitted the illegal detention of Nandagopal. Therefore, itdoes not lie in his mouth to say that mere preparation of a first informationreport, Ex.P-77, cannot be an offence under Section 218 IPC, since he hasprepared the said first information report knowing it to be false, asNandagopal was not arrested at 5.30 p.m. on 2.6.1992, but was attested muchearlier, i.e. at 3.00 a.m. on 30.5.1992, as claimed by the prosecution. Itwas A1, who prepared Ex.P-76, his special report, and Ex.P-78, a mahazar,informing A2 by showing that Nandagopal was arrested at 5.30 p.m. on 2.6.1992and the articles were recovered on the basis of the statement given by him,under a mahazar, Ex.P-78. As Nandagopal was in custody at AnnamalainagarPolice Station from 3.00 a.m. on 30.5.1992, A1 could not have effected hisarrest at 5.30 p.m. on 2.6.1992 near Srinivasa Theatre in Chidambaram.Therefore, the averments in Ex.P-76 are false and consequently, the allegedrecovery of two ceiling fans and parts of another ceiling fan under Ex.P-78 isalso false. A1, therefore, prepared these two false documents with a view tomake it appear that Nandagopal was arrested at 5.30 p.m. on 2.6.1992 and A2

also prepared an incorrect record by registering Ex.P-77, the firstinformation report, on the basis of Ex.P-76, the special report of A1, and therecords have been prepared with a view to save the police constables fromprosecution and consequent punishment, for illegally detaining Nandagopal atthe police station from the early hours of 30.5.1 992 till his death. Thefacts show that after Nandagopal died by committing suicide, the officerswanted to escape from the consequences and therefore, prepared the above threedocuments showing the arrest of Nandagopal at 5.30 p.m. on 2.6.1992 and westrongly believe that if Nandagopal has not breathed his last on the earlyhours of 3.6.1992 , the whole unsavoury episode would not have come to lightand the officers, in order to save their sub-ordinate police constables,prepared Exs.P-76 to P-78. Therefore, the conviction of A1 under Charge No.30framed under Section 218 IPC and the conviction of A2 for the same offenceframed under Charge No.31, are justified.

31. Though we have confirmed the conviction of A1 and A2 as indicatedabove, we are unable to convict A1, A3, A6 and A8 under Section 220 IPC underCharge No.32 since for an accused to be convicted under Section 220 IPC, theprosecution has to show that the person in office must have legal authority tocommit persons for trial or to confinement and in the exercise of thatauthority, he should act contrary to law. The facts in the present case donot disclose that A1, A3, A6 and A8 committed P.W.1 and Nandagopal either fortrial or to confinement in the exercise of their authority. We, therefore,acquit A1, A3, A6 and A8 of the charge framed under Section 220 IPC underCharge No.32. Since A1, A3, A6 and A8 are not found guilty under Section 220IPC, A2 cannot be found guilty under Section 220 r/w 109 IPC framed underCharge No.33 and therefore, he is acquitted of the charge framed under Section220 r/w 109 IPC.

32. In the result, the conviction and sentence of the appellants/accused under Sections 348, 330, 354, 376(2)(a)(i)(ii)(iii)(b)(g) and 2 18 IPCare confirmed. The conviction of A1, A3 and A6 under Sections 323 IPC isconfirmed, while the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them is set aside,in view of Section 71 IPC. The conviction of A3 and A8 under Section 343 IPCas well as the conviction of A1 and A2 under Section 343 r/w 109 IPC underCharge Nos.1 and 2 respectively, are confirmed. A1, A3, A6 and A8 areacquitted of the charge framed under Section 220 IPC and A2 is acquitted of the charge framed under Section 220 r/w 109 IPC. The appeals are dismissed withthe above modifications. It is reported that the appellants inCrl.A.No.680/1997, who are A1 and A2, are on bail. Hence, the learnedSessions Judge shall take steps to commit them to jail to undergo theremaining period of sentence.

33. Before parting with the appeals, it is our duty to point out thatthis is a sordid example of a case as to how brutal the accused/ policeofficers can behave inside the police station, where the hapless victims, likeP.W.1, are left in their custody. The graphic description of the inhumanconduct unleashed on P.W.1 by the accused, shocks our conscious and makes ourhearts bleed and we only feel that such conduct is not repeated in future bythe law enforcing agencies as against the under-trials, who are also humanbeings and whose rights are guaranteed under the Constitution. The manner inwhich the accused behaved on the night of 2/3.6.1992, while molesting P.W.1,

if retraced in one's mind, he will feel that she was like a hunted deer in thecaptive of blood-thirsty animals, who wanted to lick the flesh of the haplessanimal to quench their thirst before killing it. We wish to state and recordthat police station is not the house meant for carrying out such brutalobligations, but meant for carrying out a more better and lawful exercise. Weexpress our deep anguish at the way the police officers conducted themselvesin this case and we feel that the sentiments expressed by us are taken in theright spirit and the officials concerned bestow their attention to takenecessary steps to thoroughly reform the entire law enforcing system.

(N.D.,J.) (F.M.I.K.,J.)28.11.2002Index : YesWebsite: Yessbk To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, South Arcot District at Cuddalore.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram.3.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram, throughthe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.4.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Madras-8.5.The District Collector, Cuddalore.6.The Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004.7.The Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Madras.8.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.9.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.10.The Station House Officer, Annamalainagar Police Station.

((SCO LYRIX 6.1))