VADAMALAI versus SYED THASTHA KEER

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 179 · Decided: 11-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 179 
VADAMALAI 
A 
... 
v. 
SYED THASTHA KEER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2002) 
FEBRUARY 11, 2009 
8 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
_, 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
ss. 323 and 342 - Charges against Sub-Inspector of 
Police and Head Constable - Conviction by trial court -
Acquittal by appellate court set aside by High Court- Appeal 
by Head Constable - Held: Keeping in view the evidence on 
record and the circumstances, conviction of appellant as D 
1 
recorded by High Court set aside. 
The appellant, a Head Constable, and a Sub-
Inspector of Police were prosecuted for commission of 
offences punishable u/ss. 323, 324 and 342 IPC on the 
allegations that they called the complainant to the Police 
E 
Station on 10-5-1988, gave him a beating and confined 
'-
him till 13-5-1988. It was stated that the complainant made 
~ 
a complaint to senior Police Officers, but no action was 
taken. Thereafter he filed the complaint case. The 
accused denied the allegations and stated that the 
F 
complainant was interrogated in connection with a theft 
case. The trial court convicted the police officers ulss 323 
and 342 IPC. The appellate court acquitted them. 
However, the High Court having set aside the acquittal, 
the accused-Head Constable filed the appeal. 
G 
l ' 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: High Court erred in holding that even as per 
the finding of the appellate court, the complainant was 
179 
H 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A taken to the Police Station on 13.5. 1988 and was beaten 
there by the accused and thereafter he was released. The 
appellate court only stated that even if it is true that on 
10.5.1988, PW1 was taken to Police Station, there is no 
sufficient evidence to show that he was kept for four days 
B in the police station. It also recorded that the telegrams 
sent on 12.5.1988 did not refer to any illegal detention. It 
is to be noted that no effort was made to analyse this 
aspect in detail. The factors which weighed with the 
appellate court cannot be stated to be without substance. 
C In the circumstances, the conviction as recorded by the 
High Court cannot be maintained and the same is set 
aside. [Para 7 and 9] [185-F-H; 186-B-C] 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 342 of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2001 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 528 
of 1992. 
E 
K.V. Viswanatha, B. Raghunath and K.V. Venkataraman 
for the Appellant. 
F 
Ex-Partee for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 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. 
G 
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 
H i.e. learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai 
-
.. 
.l 
• 
( • 
VADAMALAI v. SYED THASTHA KEER 
181 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
Division. There were two appellants involved. Ranganathan (A-
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 
B 
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 
C 
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. 
D 
In the Police Station, Ranganathan (Al), 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 
E 
jewels sold by the said Selvi to him. The complainant said he 
neither received nor purchased any jewels from her. Then, Al 
beat him wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.