Judgment : 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 19. 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. 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. 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. (25. 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. 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. 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. Thereafter, Raju, son of the appellant and Palani went to the house of Subbiah, P.W.5 On the next morning Raju, P.W.3, Subbiah, P.W.5 and Mannavelampatti Shanmugam, P.W.7 went to Meera Jewellery at Pudukottai and bought gold ingot for which Subbiah and Raju gave money. Thereafter, they came to Annavasal Police Station and the first respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, sent for a Muslim from Mookanamalaipatti from whose house jewels were allegedly stolen. Thereafter, they went to the jewellery shop of one Shanmugam Pillai at Keela Rajaveedhi, Pudukottai, where the first respondent ordered to manufacture gold jewels for which he gave the model. The jewellery shop owner demanded Rs.1,900 as making charges. Subbiah paid Rs.1,000 only. Thereafter, the jewellery shop owner asked them to come the next evening. On the next day afternoon, P.W.3, P.Ws.5 and 7 went to Annavasal Police Station. Thereafter, the appellant and Chinnathambi were released by the first respondent. The appellant demanded a receipt from the first respondent for the gold that was purchased and entrusted or he may be sent to remand, for which the first respondent told he would consider issuing of receipt after the jewels are manufactured. 4. Then, P.Ws.1 to 3 went to their respective houses. On the next day, the appellant went to the Headquarters Hospital at Pudukottai with P.W.2 and reported the doctor that they sustained injuries by the hitting of the respondents, for which the doctor replied that they have to give a complaint and come with a police memo to the hospital for treatment otherwise he cannot treat them. Then, they met the Deputy Superintendent of Police and narrated the details. The Deputy Superintendent of Police told the Government doctors would say like that only, and advised them to get treatment with a private hospital. He also told them to meet him after the injuries are cured and then he would enquire the concerned police personnel. At that time, the first respondent came there accidentally. The Deputy Superintendent of Police questioned him as to why he behaved in that manner. He also told them to meet him after the injuries are cured and then he would enquire the concerned police personnel. At that time, the first respondent came there accidentally. The Deputy Superintendent of Police questioned him as to why he behaved in that manner. Then he asked the appellant to meet him after taking the treatment. Thereafter, they went to a private doctor at Perambur and got treatment from doctor Batcha. Five or six days later, he again met the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Then the Deputy Superintendent of Police telephoned to the Inspector of Police and he came there. He also summoned the shop owner Shanmugam Pillai and talked with him. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Instructed Balasubramaniam, the son in law of Shanmugam Pillai not to make the jewels as ordered by the first respondent. As instructed by the Inspector of Police enquired them and thereafter they went home. On the said allegations, the trial Magistrate, namely, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai framed charges under Secs.356, I.P.C. (2 counts), 343, I.P.C. (2 counts) and 323, I.P.C., against the first and second respondents, namely, Sub Inspector of Police Murugesan and the Police Constable Rangaraju. He also framed charges under Secs.343, I.P.C. (2 counts) and 323, I.P.C. (2 counts) against the third respondent, Constable Rajagopal, after observing the Private Complaint Warrant Procedure. 5. During trial Ganapathy Velar, the appellant and Chinnathambi examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2, The son of appellant, Raju was examined as P.W.3. P.W.4 is the servant of the appellant. P.Ws.5 to 7 are respectively Subbiah, Chidambaram and Shanmugam. No defence witness was examined by the respondents. 6. On an appreciation of the evidence placed before him, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai came to the conclusion that the charges under Secs.365 (2 counts), 355 (2 counts) and 343 (2 counts) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the first respondent, charges under Secs.365 (2 counts) 343 (2 counts) and 323 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code against the second respondent and charges under Secs.343 (2 counts) and 323 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code against the third respondent have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and ultimately acquitted all the respondents/ accused under Sec.241(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. 7. 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. 8. In paragraph 19 of the judgment, it is observed by the trial court that Raju P.W.3 and P.W.4 Palani are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence namely, the assault and ill-treatment meted to P.Ws.1 and 2 by respondents 1 to 3 at Annavasal Police Station. Even though P. W6 Chidambaram, gave evidence, when he was in the lock-up at Annavasal Police Station on the relevant dates P.Ws.1 and 2 were also confined in the same lock-up room where he was detained, the said P.W.6 Chidambaram has not spoken about the torture meted out to P.Ws.1 and 2. Shanmugam, P.W.7 also was not a witness to the ill-treatment at the Annavasal Police Station. The appellant has not produced P.W.2 Chinnathambi alias Subramanian, P.W.4 Palani, P.W.6 Chidambaram and P.W.7 Shanmugam for cross-examination by the respondents/ accused and therefore the conviction cannot be based on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5. At page21 of the judgment it is observed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai that when a complaint was given by P.Ws.1 and 2 about the ill-treatment by the respondent to the Deputy Superintendent he would have definitely taken legal action and the fact that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had not taken any action and the appellant had not sent any complaint to the superior Police officials throws grave doubt on the case of the complaint. Further the private doctor Batcha. when treated P.Ws.1 and 2 had not been examined is also an important feature to disbelieve the case of the appellant. There was delay in filing the private complaint in court. The correctness of the above findings of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai is being challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 9. The complainant Ganapathy Velar reiterated the allegations in his complaint in the evidence which is mentioned above. He however added after five or six days of his release from the Annavasal Police Station and after taking treatment, he met the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with P.W.2. Immediately, he summoned the Inspector of Police, Keeranur, the jewel maker Shanmugam Pillai, in whose jewellery shop order was placed by the Sub Inspector of Police to make the jewels. He however added after five or six days of his release from the Annavasal Police Station and after taking treatment, he met the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with P.W.2. Immediately, he summoned the Inspector of Police, Keeranur, the jewel maker Shanmugam Pillai, in whose jewellery shop order was placed by the Sub Inspector of Police to make the jewels. They were summoned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police by making a telephone call. The son-in-law of the said Shanmugam Pillai, one Balasubramaniam also came. The Deputy Superintendent gave instructions not to make the jewels as it has to be verified whether the jewels are stolen or not. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police gave instructions to the Inspector of Police, Keeranur to interrogate the first respondent Sub Inspector of Police and Rangan, K.D. on the same day. The Inspector of Police Keeranur asked them to come to Keeranur. He gave instruction to the first respondent to bring Rangan K.D. to Keeranur. Rangan was brought by the second respondent. When Rangan was examined by the Inspector, he stoutly denied he committed theft of gold jewels or gave it to the appellant, Ganapathy Velar. The first respondent Sub-Inspector compelled him to admit he had committed the theft in the house of a Muslim at Mookanamalaipatti and also point out a jewellery shop owner at Pudukottai wherein he gave the jewels. On his doing so, one jewellery shop owner of Pudukottai was brought by the first respondent to the police station and he was kept there for a full day. Thereafter, the association-people of jewellery shop owners came to the police station and protested that the jewellery shop owner who is kept in the Police Station, had started business only recently and he will not receive stolen jewels. Then, he was sent with them by the first respondent. Rangan, K.D. also stated he was compelled by the first respondent to point out somebody else and then he pointed out the appellant and P.W.2 that he gave the stolen jewels to them. Thereafter the Inspector ordered the second respondent to take away Rangan, K.D. It was also known one Mookan was also detained with Rangan K.D. The said Mookan was summoned by the first respondent. When Rangan was kept in the Police station, he was beaten by the first respondent. Thereafter the Inspector ordered the second respondent to take away Rangan, K.D. It was also known one Mookan was also detained with Rangan K.D. The said Mookan was summoned by the first respondent. When Rangan was kept in the Police station, he was beaten by the first respondent. When the appellant enquired Rangan, he told him since he told truth before the Inspector and not the version tutored by the respondents, he was beaten. The appellant also stated that Mookan and Rangan had been examined by some other Sub Inspectors of Police which may not be relevant for the purpose of this case. On the next day also, the appellant met the Deputy Superintendent of Police, At that time, the Deputy Superintendent summoned Shanmugam Pillai and his son-in-law by making telephone call to their shop and instructed them to return back the gold ingot given for making jewels. At that time, the appellant demanded Rs.1,000 paid as labour charges for making jewels. Balasubramaniam, the son-in-law of the shopowner replied the amount was not paid to him and the first respondent Sub Inspector of Police is having the money. The Deputy Superintendent of Police told the appellant to receive the said Rs.1,000 from the first respondent Sub Inspector of Police. Thereafter, the appellant went to the house of the first respondent and demanded the amount for which he replied he had paid Rs.500 to the shop owner and spent the balance. Thereafter, the appellant went to his house. On the way, they met the third respondent at Annavasal and told him the details. The third respondent told him the Sub Inspector of Police had spent the said sum of Rs.1,000 and not to demand the same in future. Subsequently, the appellant met the Deputy Superintendent of Police and complained he had been assaulted and put to shame in the police station and action was to be taken against the respondents. The Deputy Superintendent of Police assured to take action and requested the appellant not to make any complaint to higher police officials. But, no action has been taken and therefore he gave the private complaint. 10. In the cross-examination, he clarified, Rangan, K.D. belongs to Poikadipatti which is one kilometre from his village. He also stated that only P.W.2 was beaten first and hanged in the verandah and he was the eye witness to the same. But, no action has been taken and therefore he gave the private complaint. 10. In the cross-examination, he clarified, Rangan, K.D. belongs to Poikadipatti which is one kilometre from his village. He also stated that only P.W.2 was beaten first and hanged in the verandah and he was the eye witness to the same. Only thereafter, he was beaten and hanged head down wards by the respondents. 11. P.W.2 Chinnathambi alias Subramani corroborated the version of P.W.1. He asserted on 21. 1986 namely on Thaipoosam Festival day at about 5 or 5.30 in the evening, respondents 1 and 2 came in a pleasure car along with P.W.1 and told him the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police asked him to bring them to the Station. It being Thaipoosam day, he had not finished his fast and the pooja, he stated that after completing the same, he would come on the next morning. But the first respondent insisted he should come immediately and he will be brought back to the house in the same car. Thereafter, he went with them, along with P.W.1, to the Ilupur Police Station. The Inspector of Police alone was present. The Inspector and the first respondent talked something in English, Subsequently, Rangan, K.D. was brought by the first respondent from the lock-up. The first respondent told something to Rangan pointing out himself and P.W.1. At that time, P.W.1 protested that he and P.W. 2 were brought to the Police Station on the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not present, for which the first respondent replied gold jewels have been stolen from the house of Mohamed Ali of Mookanamalaipatti by Rangan and he had given the said jewels to them. Immediately, P.W.1 protested they are respectable and dignified people and serious false allegation is being made against him and P.W.2. Thereafter, P.W.1 and himself were taken to Annavasal Police Station. There the first respondent instructed them to undress. He also took the wrist watch. Thereafter, they were confined in the lock-up only with the underwear. In the lock-up room, Chidambaram P.W.6 had also been confined. On the next morning at 7.00 a.m. on the instructions of the first respondent, respondents 2 and 3 brought him and P.W.1, outside the lock-up room. The first respondent demanded return of 120 grams of gold jewels from P.W.1. Thereafter, they were confined in the lock-up only with the underwear. In the lock-up room, Chidambaram P.W.6 had also been confined. On the next morning at 7.00 a.m. on the instructions of the first respondent, respondents 2 and 3 brought him and P.W.1, outside the lock-up room. The first respondent demanded return of 120 grams of gold jewels from P.W.1. P.W. 1 again protested they are dignified Mirasdars and his son is a doctor and they should not be put to infamy. He stoutly denied there is any connection to him and the stolen jewels. However, the first respondent insisted P.W.1 to return the jewels. Respondents 1 and 2 beat P.W.1 with their hands and also pushed him. Then they demanded his reply. He denied he has received the jewels. 12. At that time, the first respondent beat him with a bamboo stick. He was laid down with face upwards. Rangaraju, the second respondent held his head tightly so that he cannot move. Thereafter the first respondent stood on both his knees with the boots on. He also pressed on both his palms with a bamboo stick using his full strength. Since he was hungry, he was unable to bear the pain and shouted and cried, and thereafter became unconscious. Then, the second respondent brought some water and sprinkled on his face and ordered him to stand up. But, he could not stand. He was able to sit only. The second respondent lifted him by holding his hands and ordered him to jump. He was unable to jump. Then, he was taken to the lock-up room. P.W. 1 was also detained in the same room. At 7 p.m. on that day, respondents 2 and 3 brought P.W.1 and himself outside the lock-up to the verandah. They put a bench and asked P.W.1 to stand on it. Thereafter they put handcuffs in both the hands of P.W.1. Then they tied a chain in the handcuffs and put the chain in position in the roof and thereafter, they removed the bench. The first respondent demanded 120 grams of gold from P.W.1. P.W.1 denied any connection with the gold jewels and requested not to subject him to shame. The first respondent called P.W.1 in singular (you are not a big man) and fisted. P.W.1 with his hand. P.W.1 was unable to bear the pain. But, the first respondent did not leave him. The first respondent demanded 120 grams of gold from P.W.1. P.W.1 denied any connection with the gold jewels and requested not to subject him to shame. The first respondent called P.W.1 in singular (you are not a big man) and fisted. P.W.1 with his hand. P.W.1 was unable to bear the pain. But, the first respondent did not leave him. P.W.1 was left hanging with handcuffs for about 15 minutes in the chain. Thereafter, P.W.1 was brought down. Then handcuffs were put in both his hands and he was left hanging in the chain. The Sub Inspector demanded 120 grams of gold and beat him with a stick. The Sub Inspector was continuously demanding the gold jewels. Unable to bear the pain, he shouted and cried. P.W.1 caught hold of the chain by his hands. At that time, the first respondent beat on both the hands of P.W. 1 with a bamboo stick due to which there was bleeding in his right index finger. Unable to bear the torture, he replied to give the gold jewels by selling his lands. 13. The first respondent told him to point out some jewellery shop and from the said shop owner, he would collect the gold jewels. He refused to obey the said instructions of Sub-Inspector of Police, Subsequently, he became unconscious. Sometime thereafter, he found himself in the lock-up room. After some time, Raju, P.W.3 son of P.W.1 and his servant P.W.4 Palani came. P.W.3 stated the Sub Inspector of Police since his father who was brought by the first respondent to the police Station on the previous day had not returned to the house, he came to the police station to enquire about that, for which the first respondent told P. W.3 he and P. W. 1 have received stolen jewels and if the jewels are returned, they will be set free. P.W.3 protested and told the first respondent his father and P.W.2 are not such persons and they are highly dignified people. His elder brother is an M.B.B.S. doctor. The first respondent replied only if 120 grams of gold jewels are handed over, they will be released. Thereafter, P.W.3 was permitted to see his father. P. W.3 cried on seeing his father with injuries. P. W. 1 told his son the first respondent is making false accusations and also putting them to torture and shame. The first respondent replied only if 120 grams of gold jewels are handed over, they will be released. Thereafter, P.W.3 was permitted to see his father. P. W.3 cried on seeing his father with injuries. P. W. 1 told his son the first respondent is making false accusations and also putting them to torture and shame. Then, P.W.1 told his son if they continue in the Police Station, they would be beaten to death and asked his son to go to the Village and arrange for money. P.W.2 told P.W.3 to contact his brother-in-law Shanmugam at Mannavelampatti. Thereafter, P. W.3 and P. W.4 left the police station. 14. From next morning onwards, the first respondent beat and put to shame P.W1 and himself and demanded the gold jewels. In the afternoon P.W.3, his brother-in-law Shanmugam, P.W.7 and Subbiah P. W.5 came to the Police Station. The time was 2 p.m. They told the first respondent they brought the gold ingot and requested him to release himself and P.W.1. The first respondent verified the gold. Thereafter, as per the instruction of the first respondent, Mohammed All from Mookanamalapatti was brought. Thereafter, the Sub Inspector of Police left the Police Station with the said Muslim, P. Ws.3, 5 and 7 in the same car brought by P. W.3 and others to Pudukottai with gold. They did not return to Police Station that day. Next morning at 9 a.m. the first respondent caome to the police station. In the afternoon, P. Ws.3 to 5 came and informed him and P.W.1 they went with the gold to Pudukottai. They have the gold in the shop of Vaa Yee. Shanmugham Pillai and instructions had been given by the first respondent to make the jewels as per the model indicated by the Muslim. They also informed him Shanmugham Pillai demanded Rs.1,900 as making charges and since there was no so much money, Subbiah paid only Rs.1,000 and promised to pay the balance at the time of taking the jewels. At 5 or 5.30 in the evening, the first respondent asked himself and Ganapathy Velar to leave the police station. The appellant demanded that his people have brought the gold after great difficulty and a receipt should be given for the gold given to him, otherwise he may be sent to remand. The first respondent threatened him that the same may be talked about, later. The appellant demanded that his people have brought the gold after great difficulty and a receipt should be given for the gold given to him, otherwise he may be sent to remand. The first respondent threatened him that the same may be talked about, later. Thereafter, he and P.W.1 went to their respective houses. On the next day, he went with P.W.1 to the Headquarters Hospital at Pudukottai where the Government Doctor refused to treat them since the injuries had been caused by police people. Both himself and P.W. 1 were suffering from great pain. Then, they met the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Pudukottai. He advised them to take treatment with a private doctor and come to him after one Week. Then he and P.W.1 went to a private doctor at Perambur by name Batcha and took treatment. 15. After one week, they again met the Deputy Superintendent of Police. At that time, the Inspector of Police came to the house of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Deputy Superintendent of Police summoned the first respondent by making a telephone call. Then, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police and P.W.1 talked some time and P.W.1 came out. P.W.1 informed him that they should go to the Keeranur Police Station and they would be interrogated. Next day, they went to Keeranur. Rangan, K.D. was present. Keeranur Inspector of Police came over there. The first respondent and seven or eight other Sub Inspectors were present. When Rangan was examined, he denied the theft and handing over of stolen jewels to him arid P.W.1. Rangan said, unable to bear the torture by the first respondent, he falsely stated that he gave the stolen jewels to him and P.W.1. When P.W.1 demanded the return of the gold, he was instructed to meet the Deputy Superintendent of Police next day and if the Deputy Superintendent of Police returns the gold, to receive the same from him, Accordingly, they met the Deputy Superintendent of Police next day. The Deputy Superintendent of Police told them the accusation made against them that they received stolen jewels is not correct and asked them to receive the gold after two days. At that time P.W.1 complained to the Deputy Superintendent of Police about the ill-treatment and torture by the respondents and requested him to take action. The Deputy Superintendent of Police told them the accusation made against them that they received stolen jewels is not correct and asked them to receive the gold after two days. At that time P.W.1 complained to the Deputy Superintendent of Police about the ill-treatment and torture by the respondents and requested him to take action. He promised to take action, but made a request not to complain to the superior police Officials. When they met the Deputy Superintendent of Police after two days, he summoned the son-in-law of Vaa.Yee. Shanmugam Pillai. Balasubramaniam, who brought the gold which the Deputy Superintendent of Police handed over to P.W.1. 16. P.W.3 is Raju, who is son of P.W.1. He corroborated the version of P.W. 1 that on Thaipoosam day at about 5 p.m., the respondents 1 and 2 came to his house and took P.W.1 saying the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police asked them to bring him to Ilupur Police Station. His father did not return till next day. Thereafter, he went to Ilupur Police Station with his servant Palani P.W.4. There, he was informed to go to Annavasal Police Station and he went to Annavasal Police Station and asked the first respondent about his father. He told him his father had received stolen gold jewels and after returning the gold jewels he can take his father. When he protested they are dignified people and his elder brother is a doctor, the first respondent told him by next day if the gold jewels were not returned his father and P.W.2 would be sent to Palayamkottai Jail. When he met his father in the lock-up he found injuries on him. His father, P.W.1, informed him that respondents 1 to 3 caused the injuries. His father and P.W.2 requested him to take arrangements to release them from the police station. Thereafter, he and Palani returned to the house. On the next day, he went along with Palani to the house of Subbiah P.W.5. One day thereafter, he took Rs.10,000 from his house and along with Subbiah P.W.5 and Shanmugam P.W.7 went Meera Jewellers at Pudukottai. After purchasing 120 grains of gold ingot in that shop they went to the Annavasal Police Station and met the first respondent. Thereafter, the Muslim was summoned to the Police Station. One day thereafter, he took Rs.10,000 from his house and along with Subbiah P.W.5 and Shanmugam P.W.7 went Meera Jewellers at Pudukottai. After purchasing 120 grains of gold ingot in that shop they went to the Annavasal Police Station and met the first respondent. Thereafter, the Muslim was summoned to the Police Station. Then the first respondent took the said Muslim along with himself, P.W.5 and P.W.7 to the Pudukottai to the shop of Vaa.Yee. Shanmugam Pillai at Raja Veedhi. In that shop, the first respondent gave instructions to make jewels similar to the jewels of the Muslim, from whose house jewels were allegedly stolen. Shanmugam, Pillai demanded Rs.1,900 as labour charges. Subbiah paid only Rs.1,000 which he was having. They were instructed to come on the evening of the next day. Again, on the next day afternoon, they went to Annavasal Police Station. His father and P.W.2 were released in the evening. His father demanded a receipt for the gold entrusted to the first respondent or asked him to send him for remand. The first respondent replied let the jewels come first and thereafter the other things can be arranged. Then, he with his father, and Chinnathambi returned to the respective houses. P.W.1 and P.W.2 said they will take treatment and also make complaint to the higher police officials about the torture meted out to them and left. P.W.3 clarified in the cross-examination that he had studied upto Plus Two and P.W.5 Subbiah was the President of the Panchayat of Parambur. 17. P.W.4 is Palani, the farm servant of P.W.1. He gave evidence corroborating the version of P.W.3 that he met Subbiah P.W.5 on the next day in his house and he promised to help P.W.3 to get his father and P.W.2 released. P.W.4 asserted that P.W.1 was taken from his house by respondents 1 and 2 on the Thai Poosam day that is on 21. 1986 and P.W.1 did not return till the next day and he accompanied P.W.3 to the Police Station and met P.W.1 and 2 in the lock-up of Annavasal police station and the first respondent demanded 120 grams of gold making accusation that P.Ws.1 and 2 have received stolen gold jewels. 18. P.W.5 is Subbiah. He claimed that he was the Panchayat Board President of Parambur, and he knows P.Ws.1 and 2 and the accused/respondent. 18. P.W.5 is Subbiah. He claimed that he was the Panchayat Board President of Parambur, and he knows P.Ws.1 and 2 and the accused/respondent. About 11/2 years prior to the date he gave evidence in the court, on the next day of Thai Poosam, i.e., on 25. 1987, at about 09.30 or 10 a.m. P.Ws.3 and 4 came and met him in his house. P.W.3 told him his father was taken by respondents 1 and 2 to Ilupur Police Station and since they did not return till the next day, he went and enquired about his father in Ilupur Police Station, where he was not available. Thereafter, he went to Annavasal Police Station getting information his father was kept there. There, he found P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the lock-up and the first respondent told him to bring 120 grams of gold and thereafter take his father and P.W.2, failing which they cannot be released. On the next morning, he along with P.W.3, Shanmugam, P.W.7 went to Pudukottai and purchased 120 grams of gold ingot from Meera Jewellers. They delivered the gold as ingot. With the gold ingot, they went to Annavasal Police Station in a car and met the first respondent there. As per the instructions of the first respondent one Mohamed Ali from Mookanamalaipatti was brought in the said car. The first respondent and the Muslim confided separately. Thereafter, the first respondent, the Muslim gentleman, himself, P.W.3 and P.W.7 went to Pudukottai to the jewellery shop to Vaa.Yee. Shanmugam Pillai. There, the first respondent handed over the gold ingot received from them and ordered to make jewels similar to the model of the jewels, allegedly stolen away from the house of the Muslim. He gave Rs.1,000 to the first respondent towards making charges and promised to give the balance charges at the time of receiving the jewels. As instructed by the first respondent, he returned to the house. Next day, he went to the Annavasal Police Station with others. The first respondent ordered them to take P.Ws.1 and 2 from the Police Station. At that time, P.W.1 demanded a receipt from the first respondent for the gold handed over to him. The first respondent threatened and sent out P.W.1 and P.W.2 from the Police Station. He found injury in the thigh of P.W.1. The first respondent ordered them to take P.Ws.1 and 2 from the Police Station. At that time, P.W.1 demanded a receipt from the first respondent for the gold handed over to him. The first respondent threatened and sent out P.W.1 and P.W.2 from the Police Station. He found injury in the thigh of P.W.1. He also noticed injury in the finger finger nail of P.Ws.1 and 2 went away saying they would go to the hospital to take treatment. In the cross-examination, P. W.5 asserted that P. W.3 brought an amount of Rs.10,000 for purchasing the gold. He stated the balance amount was paid by P.W.7 Shanmugam. He denied the allegation that since P.W.1 was a member of the Panchayat, he is supporting the appellant as the ex-President of the Panchayat Board. 19. P.W.6 is one Chidambaram. He deposed that he belongs to Kadamaranpatti where P.W.1 is living. He knows the three accused. At the relevant time P.Ws.1 and 2 were found in the lock-up at Annavasal Police Station. He was also in the same lock-up for a criminal complaint that he quarrelled with a bus conductor, he asserted P.Ws.1 and 2 were also confined in the same lock-up room along with him. According to him, he was in the Annavasal Police Station for two days and P.Ws.1 and 2 were also detained in the same lock-up room for two days to his knowledge. 20. Shanmugam gave evidence as P.W.7. He said about 2 years prior he deposed in the trial court, on a Sunday, P. W.3 and P.W.5 came to his house at about 10 p.m. in the night. They informed him that P.Ws.1 and 2 were kept in the lock-up by the first respondent and the first respondent had told P.W.3 that only if 120 grams of gold is returned, P.Ws.1 and 2 will be released. They asked monetary help from him to the extent of Rs.15,000. He asked them to come the next morning. He gave P.Ws.3 and 5 Rs.15,000 and also went with them to Meera Jewellers at Pudukottai where they bought 120 grams of gold by paying the money. Thereafter, they hired a taxi and went to Annavasal Police Station and met the first respondent. The first respondent arranged to get the Muslim gentleman from Mookanamalaipatti. He gave P.Ws.3 and 5 Rs.15,000 and also went with them to Meera Jewellers at Pudukottai where they bought 120 grams of gold by paying the money. Thereafter, they hired a taxi and went to Annavasal Police Station and met the first respondent. The first respondent arranged to get the Muslim gentleman from Mookanamalaipatti. After arrival of the said Muslim, the first respondent took the said Muslim accompanied by himself, P.Ws.2,3 and 5 and went to the shop of Vaa.Yee. Shanmugam Pillai. There, the first respondent ascertained the model of the jewels from the Muslim and ordered Shanmugam Pillai to make jewels of similar model. The jewellery shop owner made a note of the model as informed by the Muslim. The said Shanmugam Pillai demanded Rs.1,900 as making charges. P.W.5 gave Rs.1,000 only. Thereafter all of them went to Police Station and the first respondent released P.Ws.1 and 2. 21. Before proceeding to sift and analyse the evidence, it is very important to bear in mind the guidelines and precautions to be observed regarding an appeal against acquittal. In this regard, it will be useful to refer the ruling in the Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibhai and others v. The State of Gujarat, J.T. (1995)6 S.C. 275. In paragraphs 9 to 11 and 13, the Supreme Court of India had observed; "9. Law is now well settled that though the Code of Criminal Procedure does not make any distinction between the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an order of conviction or of acquittal, normally the appellate court does not’ disturb an order of acquittal in a case where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible. But the above principle is not applicable where the approach of the trial Judge in dealing with the evidence is manifestly erroneous and the conclusions drawn are wholly unreasonable and perverse. In the instant case we find that the High Court was fully conscious, and did not transgress the bounds, of its appellate powers while dealing and reversing the order of acquittal. 10. As already noticed the prosecution case was that the successive assaults on Govindbhat, Arvind and Vinod were parts of the some transaction and outcome of one and the same common object and not isolated incidents. Surprisingly however, the trial Judge appraised the evidence of the eye witnesses treating the three incidents of assault as distinct and unconnected with each other. As already noticed the prosecution case was that the successive assaults on Govindbhat, Arvind and Vinod were parts of the some transaction and outcome of one and the same common object and not isolated incidents. Surprisingly however, the trial Judge appraised the evidence of the eye witnesses treating the three incidents of assault as distinct and unconnected with each other. The High Court was, therefore, frilly justified in observing that the basis approach of the trial Judge in appreciating the prosecution evidence was absolutely erroneous as it proceeded as if the three assaults were for different motives or common objects. 11. With the above observation, the High Court passed the basic question as to whether the prosecution succeeded in proving that 40-50 members of Bharwad Community formed an unlawful assembly and considering the evidence of the eye witnesses answered it in the affirmative. The High Court also observed that even the defence did not seriously challenged the above part of the prosecution case and that the learned Counsel appearing for the accused did not dispute that question. Before us also Mr.Ramaswamy in his usual fairness, did not also join issue with the above find-ing of the High Court. 13. To appreciate whether the above conclusion of the High Court is sustainable or not we have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record. Having done so we find that the High Court was fully justified in reversing the acquittal as the trial Judge’s approach in appreciation of evidence was patently wrong and perverse. While on this point we may also mention that some of the reasons given by the trial Judge are of such flimsy character that they did not merit any consideration in the appellate court. Besides the trial Judge was not at all justified in relying upon minor discrepancies regarding details to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses which the High Court noticed and rightly ignored. However, to avoid prolixity we refrain from detailing or discussing the perverse findings of the trial Judge more particularly when we find the High Court has dealt with them properly and exhaustively." 22. However, to avoid prolixity we refrain from detailing or discussing the perverse findings of the trial Judge more particularly when we find the High Court has dealt with them properly and exhaustively." 22. In the decision in Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1987 Crl.L.J. 974, at paragraph 6 it has been pointed out: "The High Court has not found its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation, the High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in. the order of acquittal passed by the court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the appellate court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the court below has taken a view which is plausible one, the appellate court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even it is of the opinion that the view taken by the court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous." 23. In the ruling in Hari Chand and another v. State of Delhi, J.T. (1996)2 S.C. 140, at page 157 in paragraph 28, the Supreme Court had observed; "28. In the ruling in Hari Chand and another v. State of Delhi, J.T. (1996)2 S.C. 140, at page 157 in paragraph 28, the Supreme Court had observed; "28. It is now well settled that in appeal against the acquittal the High Court is entitled to reappreciate the evidence if it is found that the view take by acquitting Court was not a possible view or that it was a perverse or infirm or palpably erroneous view. In the case of Uppari Venkataswamy and others v. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1995) 7 Scale 147 , a Division Bench of this Court consisting of M.K. Mukherjee, J., and one of is S.B. Majmudar, J., has made the following observations on this aspect in paragraph 28 of the report: "It is now well settled by catena of decisions of this Court that in an appeal against acquittal the appellate Court can interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and can upset the acquittal by re-appreciating evidence if it is formed that the view taken by the acquitting court was not a possible view on the evidence on record. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, (1995)2 S.C.C. 486 , KM. Sahai, J. speaking for this Court made the following pertinent observations in this connection in para 7 of the report: "...We agree that this Court is not precluded or the court hearing the appeal against acquittal is not prevented from examining and reappreciating the evidence on record. But the duty of a court hearing the appeal against acquittal in the first instance is to satisfy, itself it the view taken by acquitting court......was possible view or not. And if the Court comes to conclusion that it was not, it can on reappreciating of evidence reverse the order..." It was also observed in the said decision that the appellate court would not be entitled to interfere unless the view of the acquitting court is found to be perverse or infirm or palpably erroneous. We have, therefore, to see whether on the facts of the present case the trial court was justified in acquitting the present accused of the offences with which they were charged by brushing aside the eye-witness account of injured P.Ws.1 and 4 to 7..." 24. We have, therefore, to see whether on the facts of the present case the trial court was justified in acquitting the present accused of the offences with which they were charged by brushing aside the eye-witness account of injured P.Ws.1 and 4 to 7..." 24. From a careful reading of the principles of law laid down in the above rulings, it is clear that this Court has ample power to appraise the evidence if it is satisfied that the appreciation of the evidence by the lower court is perverse and against the cannons of justice. However, this Court has to be very cautious in doing that exercise. It should appraise the evidence keeping in mind that if two views are reasonably possible, the view that is advantageous to the accused has to be maintained. Therefore, it has to be seen whether two views are possible on an appreciation of the evidence in this case and the analysis of evidence by the trial Judge is according to law and not perverse. 25. P.W.1 Ganapathy Velar has clearly asserted he and P. W.2 had been taken to the Ilupur Police Station on 21. 1986. Thaipoosam day by respondents 1 and 2 without disclosing any reason on the pretext the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police directed to bring them which was found to be incorrect after reaching the Police Station. Then, they were abruptly informed by the first respondent and he and P.W.2 had taken stolen gold jewels from Rangan, K.D. and demanded the return of the same. When they protested they are innocent and respectable landlords and they have not received and stolen jewels, even without registering a case, they were taken to Annavasal Police Station and the first respondent ordered them to be put in the lock up after removing their dress, which was executed by the other respondents. The waistcord of P.W.1 was also removed. They were threatened by the first respondent at the risk of their life they should give the stolen jewels, otherwise severe consequences will follow. On the next morning, i.e., 21. 1986. P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken out of the lock-up and when they denied the receipt of the gold jewels once again, the respondents beat P. W. 1 indiscriminately and the first respondent kicked P. W. 1 with his boots and also dashed his head on the wall. On the next morning, i.e., 21. 1986. P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken out of the lock-up and when they denied the receipt of the gold jewels once again, the respondents beat P. W. 1 indiscriminately and the first respondent kicked P. W. 1 with his boots and also dashed his head on the wall. Thereafter, he became unconscious and he was put in the lock up. Then, P. W.2 was beaten with lathies. Again at 7.30 or 8.30 p.m. both of them were taken out from the lock up and P. W. 1 was compelled to sit near the wall stretching his legs and the third respondent held his legs tightly, while the second respondent held his hands and the first respondent after placing a zinc pipe on the stretched legs of P. W. 1 stood over the pipe and relied it with his legs holding the wall for support and P.W.1 cried unable to bear the pain. Thereafter, respondents 2 and 3 beat P.W. 1 with their hands and the first respondent beat him with a lathi on his thigh. Subsequently, P.W.1 was handcuffed and was hanged head downwards. The same treatment was also given to P.W.2. 26. The evidence of P. W. 1 has been corroborated by P.W.2 Subramani alias Chinnathambi. P.W.2 had clearly supported the evidence of P.W.1 in all material particulars. P.W.2 deposed indefinite terms that he was taken to the Ilupur police station on the Thaipoosam day without disclosing any reason along with P.W.1 on the pretext the superior Police Officers wanted them which was found to be false. He had also stated he and P.W.1 were detained in the lock up with underwear only and when they denied the receipt of gold jewels from Rangan, K.D., P.W.1 was beaten and fisted with hands by respondents 1 and 2. Thereafter, he was beaten with a bamboo stick by the first respondent and was laid head upwards and the second respondent Rangaraj held his head tightly and the first respondent stood on both his knees with his boots on, and thereafter beat on the palms with a bamboo stick using all his strength. Thereafter he was compelled to stand up but he was unable to do so. Then he was ordered to jump. Subsequently, handcuffs were put and he was hung in the verandah. Thereafter he was compelled to stand up but he was unable to do so. Then he was ordered to jump. Subsequently, handcuffs were put and he was hung in the verandah. P.Ws.1 and 2 have clearly stated that the first respondent compelled them to bring 120 grams of gold otherwise he will not release P.Ws.1 and 2. P.Ws.1 and 2 were categorical, that they were made to believe that only if 120 grams of gold was given by them, they would be released from the lock-up, otherwise they would be beaten to death. Therefore, they have decided to give the 120 grams of gold jewels to escape from the torture and ill-treatment and arrangement was made through P.W.3, Raju, the son of P.W.1 for the same. 27. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is very definite that P. W. 1 Ganapathy Velar was taken away in a pleasure car by respondents 1 and 2 on the evening of 21. 1986 on a Thaipoosam day and when P.W.1 said, after completing the pooja he would come to the Police Station in the next morning, he was not allowed to do so. P.W.1 was compulsorily taken in vehicle. Since P.W.1 did not return to the house till next day, they went to the Police station and found P.W. 1 in the lock-up along with P.W.2 in Annavasal Police Station after making enquiry in the Ilupur Police Station. P.W.3 was definite that when he met his father in the lock-up, he found injuries on him and he was told, the respondents beat him. P.W.3 also stated when he protested to the first respondent that P.Ws.1 and 2 are respectable and dignified landlords and they would not receive stolen jewels, he was only informed unless the gold jewels are returned, P.Ws.1 and 2 would not be released from the lock-up. Thereafter on the instructions of P.W.1 and also the request of P.W.2, he and Palani met P.W.5 Subbiah and thereafter with the help of Shanmugam P.W.7, he bought 120 grams of gold ingot from Meera Jewellery at Pudukottai. P.W.3 stated definitely that he had taken from his house a sum of Rs.10,000 and P.W.7 helped him with Rs.15,000 for purchasing the gold ingot. 28. P.W.3 stated definitely that he had taken from his house a sum of Rs.10,000 and P.W.7 helped him with Rs.15,000 for purchasing the gold ingot. 28. P.W.5 Subbiah had asserted without any shadow of doubt that on the request of P.W.3 Raju, the son of P.W.1, he along with P.W.3 and P.W.7 went to Pudukottai on 21. 1986 and purchased 120 grams of gold in got from Meera Jewellery, he had also stated when they went to the Annavasal Police station in a car with the gold ingot and met the first respondent, he arranged Mohammed Ali of Mookanamalaipatti to be brought in the car to the police station and thereafter, along with the said Muslim, the first respondent took P.Ws.3 and 5 7 to the goldsmith shop of Vaa.Yee. Shanmugam Pillai at Pudukottai and arranged for the jewels to be made with the said ingot exactly similar to the jewels of Mohammed Ali from whose house gold jewels were alleged to have been stolen. The said Vaa.Yee. Shanmugam Pillai demanded a sum of Rs.1,900 to be paid as making charges for which only Rs.1,000 had been paid as he had only Rs.1,000 and promised to pay the balance at the time of taking delivery of the jewels. 29. Even assuming that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2,3 and 4 has to be branded as interested in the view that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the affected and injured persons at the hands of the respondents, and P.W.3 is the son of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is the servant of P.W.1, on a careful and impartial analysis of the evidence we are of the considered opinion that the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7 is completely independent, spontaneous and trustworthy and no circumstance had been proved or brought out by the respondents/accused that their evidence is interested, suspicious and cannot be accepted. 30. P.Ws.5 and 7 have no axe to grind against the respondents except that P.W.5 is the brother-in-law of P.W.2. 30. P.Ws.5 and 7 have no axe to grind against the respondents except that P.W.5 is the brother-in-law of P.W.2. There is no reason for P.Ws.5 and 7 to state before the Court that on the request of P.W.3 they went to Pudukottai to purchase 120 grams of gold in Meera Jewellery and thereafter went to the Annavasal Police Station to meet the first respondent, and also to depose that at the instance of the first respondent, Mohamed Ali was brought from Mookanamalaipatti in the car in which they went to the police station and thereafter on the order of the first respondent, both of them accompanied the first respondent, and Mohamed Ali to the goldsmith shop of Vaa.Yee. Shanmugam Pillai and there, the first respondent ordered jewels to be made exactly similar to the model of the jewels of Mohamed Ali from whose house jewels were allegedly stolen. 31. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said P.Ws.5 and 7 have determinated to give false evidence that too against a Sub Inspector of Police, and Police Constable risking their safety, in our opinion the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is also true, credible and acceptable. There is absolutely no enmity between P.Ws.1 and 2 and the respondents and I am unable to foresee any reason for them to depose before the court falsely that they have been taken on a festival day namely Thaipoosam day (21. 1986) to the Police Station and there they have been branded as persons who had received stolen jewels from a known thief Rangan and subsequently they have been shifted to the Annavasal Police Station and put in the lock up only with the underwear. There cannot also be any conceivable reason for them to state falsely that they have been beaten with lathies and hands by the respondents and also that the respondent stood on a zinc pipe on the stretched legs of P.W.1 and both of them were handcuffed and hung over a rod in the verandah. In our opinion, no strong reason had been made out by the respondents to show that P.Ws.3 and 4 were prompted to utter untruth before the court at the instance of P.Ws.1 and 2. In our opinion, no strong reason had been made out by the respondents to show that P.Ws.3 and 4 were prompted to utter untruth before the court at the instance of P.Ws.1 and 2. They have clearly stated that P.W.1 was forcibly taken from his house on a Thaipoosam day and he did not return to the house till next day afternoon and when they sent to search of P. W.1, first to the Ilupur Police Station and thereafter to Annavasal Police Station, they found P.Ws.1 and 2 in the lock-up and P.W.1 had injuries on his body. We are unable to accept merely because P.W.3 is the seen of P.W. 1 and P.W.4 is the servant of P.W.1, they came forward to give false evidence against the respondents, police personnel. We are definite that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is also true and that they have only told the truth and there us no reason to discard their evidence. The suggestion in the cross-examination of P. W. 1 that he is a litigant and when the first respondent refused to help him in a civil suit he had lodged the private complaint falsely is very flimsy and is totally unacceptable. .32. P.W.6, Chidambaram had categorically asserted when he was in the lock up of Annavasal Police Station on the relevant dates, P.Ws.1 and 2 were detained in the same lock-up where he was lodged. The objection that P.W.6 did not see the torture meted out to P.Ws.1 and 2 and therefore, his evidence is not trustworthy does not appear to carry any weight or acceptance. It is impossible to conceive any police personnel would ill-treat or torture a person in the police lock-up in the presence of any other person in the lock up, risking he would become a witness subsequently in a court. Any police personnel would take precaution that no one sees the ill-treatment or torture and therefore, in our view, the fact that P.W.6 had not deposed he same the ill-treatment and torture meted out to P.Ws.1 and 2 does not make any difference. The evidence of P.W.6 confirms that P.W.1 and 2 were lodged in the lock up of Annavasal Police Station at the instance of the first respondent without any dress and they were there for a continuous period of two days to this knowledge. 33. The evidence of P.W.6 confirms that P.W.1 and 2 were lodged in the lock up of Annavasal Police Station at the instance of the first respondent without any dress and they were there for a continuous period of two days to this knowledge. 33. It is very unfortunate that the trial Judge had not made any genuine attempt to discuss the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7 in detail and thereafter rejected their evidence as false and untrustworthy. He had merely brushed aside their evidence on the ground that P.Ws.2, 4, 6 and 7 have not been produced in Court for cross examination by the respondents. 34. On a perusal of the evidence of the above witnesses, it is noticed that on the days when they were examined in the court, representation had been made on behalf of the respondents they have no cross-examination for the present, and only on that reason, they have not been cross-examined. It is not as if the above witnesses have been examined in chief only, in part, and thereafter they were not produced in court by the complainant either for completion of the chief examination or for the cross-examination: The cross-examination was not ordered to be deferred by the trial court on an application of the accused. It is very clear to our mind that the respondent/accused have designedly not cross-examined the above witnesses on the pretext that they have no cross-examination for the present so that they can put up a plausible reason the witnesses have not been produced for cross-examination by the complainant, so as to persuade the Court that the complainant failed in his duty, and thereby gain the sympathy of the appellate court. On the other hand, we are inclined to conclude that the respondents/accused with a plan did not cross-examined the above witnesses and allowed the chief-examination to be completed. In such circumstances, the burden to get the witnesses in the court and cross-examine them shifts to the respondents/accused only, and they have to blame themselves only and they cannot find fault with the complainant for not producing the witnesses for cross-examination. It appears to our mind the respondents/accused made arrangements not to bring the above witnesses to court for cross-examination to achieve their object mentioned supra and we find great difficulty to accept such a planned and unholy deliberation. It appears to our mind the respondents/accused made arrangements not to bring the above witnesses to court for cross-examination to achieve their object mentioned supra and we find great difficulty to accept such a planned and unholy deliberation. We are troubled in our mind to see that the trial Judge fell a prey to the planned attempt of the respondents and as pointed out earlier, he has not taken any serious attempt to secure the witnesses to court for cross-examination, since the respondents are police personnel and therefore, it is his duty to help them by picking up holes in the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant. As already stated, the accused have to blame themselves for not cross-examining the above witnesses and therefore, they cannot be allowed to put up a plea before this Court that since they have not cross-examined some witnesses, they suffered prejudice and the evidence on the side of the complainant has to be doubted. We firmly reject the above plea raised on the side of the accused. 35. The other reasons given by the learned trial Magistrate that the report given by P.W.1 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police after he was released from the lock-up is the earliest document and since the same had not been summoned and marked as an exhibit by the complaint on his side, as the same is vital to his case and therefore the complaint’s version has to be disbelieved, in our opinion does not hold water. The complainant is a villager and rustic and we are inclined to think that even if he had made an attempt to summon the said document, the D.S.P. and the Inspector of Police who had failed in their duties and guilty of dereliction of duty in not taking any disciplinary or penal action against the subordinates the respondents who have committed grave offences, would not have sent it to the court and would have put up a plea such a document is not available. 36. The conclusion of the learned trial Magistrate the complaint given to the D.S.P. is a vital document and the non-production of the same goes to the root of the case and makes the case of the complainant shaky and unbelievable, is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 36. The conclusion of the learned trial Magistrate the complaint given to the D.S.P. is a vital document and the non-production of the same goes to the root of the case and makes the case of the complainant shaky and unbelievable, is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Nothing has prevent the said learned trial Magistrate to have summoned the document if he was so much interested to uphold the cause of justice and marked same as a court exhibit. .37. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that it is not only the duty of the complainant to produce witnesses for cross-examination and the court has no part to play. Primarily it is the duty of the court to make witnesses appear and give evidence and if the witnesses show hesitation and reluctance in coming to the court and deposing what they know about the case, then the learned trial Magistrate should issue coercive steps to bring the witnesses to court. In this case, the learned trial Judge has satisfied himself in merely observing the complainant has failed to produce P.Ws.2, 4 , 6 and 7 for cross-examination. He had not given any cogent reason namely the complaint failed to pay process fee continuously or did not show any interest in bringing the above witnesses to court. If the complainant has failed to pay process fee then the learned Magistrate ought to have passed an order stating that if process fee is not paid for the next hearing date, the complaint would be dismissed for non-payment of process fee. Nothing seems to have been done by the Magistrate. We have already observed the complainant has produced the above witnesses and they have given their evidence and were very much available for being cross-examined but the accused/respondent alone have failed to cross-examine them, obviously to make use of the situation to their advantage at a later stage. We have already pointed out that respondents/accused have failed to cross examine the above witnesses and the burden had shifted on them to bring the witnesses to the court and they cannot be allowed to make such a plea in this regard. We have already pointed out that respondents/accused have failed to cross examine the above witnesses and the burden had shifted on them to bring the witnesses to the court and they cannot be allowed to make such a plea in this regard. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents/accused in this Court that they have prayed the learned trial Magistrate to issue coercive process to P.Ws.2, 4, 6 and 7 and secure them in Court, but the trial Magistrate has not accepted the plea and therefore, the respondents have suffered great prejudice, in our opinion, appears to be a travesty of truth. No material is found in the records to accept that such a plea had been made before the trial Magistrate. Even assuming that such a plea has been made and the trial Magistrate has refused to issue coercive process to the above witness is true, it is not as if the respondents/accused were left without remedy. They ought to have filed appropriate petition before the High Court and should have prayed for suitable orders. Nothing has been done by the respondents in that direction. It appears the respondents/accused were very sure that the trial Magistrate would pick holes in the evidence of witnesses of the complainant and ultimately acquit them and therefore they have kept quiet. .38. We are also unable to agree with the finding of the learned trial Magistrate that the complaint has been lodged belatedly in the court which had caused doubt as to whether the same is true. It is to be noticed that the complaint has been filed against police personnel and the Deputy Superintendent of Police had also cautioned him not to complain about the matter to any other superior officers. Further, P.W.1 was taking treatment and was also contacting the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police to get return of the gold ingot purchased by P.Ws.3, 5 and 7 which took considerable time. P.W.1 is a rustic and does not possess worldly experience. Considering the above, we are inclined to hold that no prejudice had been caused to the respondent/accused by the delay in preferring the complaint to the court. 39. After giving our thought and impartial consideration in the matter, we are inclined to held that the first respondent Sub-Inspector of Police and the second and third respondents Police Constables have grossly misused their position. 39. After giving our thought and impartial consideration in the matter, we are inclined to held that the first respondent Sub-Inspector of Police and the second and third respondents Police Constables have grossly misused their position. Respondents 1 and 2 went to the extent of taking P.Ws.1 and 2 from their houses without even disclosing the reasons for their being taken to the police station, but took them on the pretext the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police wanted them. It appears respondents 1 and 2 thought they can take any citizen to the police station at their will, brand them as receiver of stolen property and demand to part with valuable property under risk of their life even without registering a case against them. It is also clear respondents 1 and 2 showed a conduct that there is no power on earth to question or check them and they are endowed with the powers of a dictator. 40. We are at a loss to find any document among the records to show that Mohamed Ali of Mookanamalaipatti and preferred any complaint that gold jewels had been stolen away from his house and a case had not registered by the first respondent. The Police personnel in this case who are the guardians of the rights of the citizens had indulged in committing grave offences namely taking P.Ws.1 and 2 from their houses without even disclosing the offence they have committed and after reaching the police station branding them as receivers of stolen jewels lodged them in lock-up without dress and compelling them to part with valuable property at the risk of bodily injuries and as a matter of fact subjected P.Ws.1 and 2 to torture and 111-treatment. 41. It has also been proved that Rangan had been made a scape goat by the respondents/accused and he had been coerced to brand P.Ws.1 and 2 as receivers of stolen property so that the respondents can use force and assault them, with impugnity to get back the jewels allegedly stolen from the house of Mohamed Ali. 41. It has also been proved that Rangan had been made a scape goat by the respondents/accused and he had been coerced to brand P.Ws.1 and 2 as receivers of stolen property so that the respondents can use force and assault them, with impugnity to get back the jewels allegedly stolen from the house of Mohamed Ali. It gives great mental agony to see the Inspector of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police who came to know that there was absolutely no reason for respondents 1 and 2 to take P.Ws.1 and 2 to the police station and subject them to torture and ill-treatment along with the third respondent had totally failed in their duty to take any action to set right the matter and render redress to the affected parties namely P.Ws.1 and 2. We are firmly of the opinion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7 is totally true and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the same. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated by P.W.6 as already indicated so far as the illegal detention in the lock-up. 42. In our considered opinion, the plea the prosecution against the respondents cannot be upheld for the reason no sanction has been obtained by the complainant to prosecute them as per Sec.197 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot also have any merit. Sec.197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a safe-guard to public servants who discharge their duties within the four corners of law and the procedure established by law and it is not available to a public servant who indulged in grave offences violating the law of the land and the responsibilities enjoined on him as the public servant. We have already pointed out the respondents have committed grave offences taking law into their hands and not discharging the duties enjoined on them as police personnel. 43. Art.21 of the Constitution of India guarantees no person shall be deprived of his life personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. We have already pointed out the respondents have committed grave offences taking law into their hands and not discharging the duties enjoined on them as police personnel. 43. Art.21 of the Constitution of India guarantees no person shall be deprived of his life personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Art.22 states that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed as soon as may be the grounds for such arrest nor shall be denied the right to consult and be defended by legal practitioner of his choice and every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest. In the present case, the respondents have not chosen to intimate the reason for which P.Ws.1 and 2 have been brought to the police station and lodged in the lockup nor allowed them to consult any advocate or produced them before a Magistrate within 24 hours but deprived the liberty of P.Ws.1 and 2 in naked violation of law, obviously due to influence exerted on them by some people about whom the respondents alone knew better. In any event, no objection had been taken by the respondents/ accused at the earliest opportunity namely in the trial court that sanction to prosecute was necessary and since sanction has not been obtained, the court could not have taken cognisance of the case. The respondents namely police personnel have indulged in grave offences in total violation of the responsibilities and duties ordained on them and cannot now be permitted to put up an objection that the prosecution is bad for want of sanction at a very belated stage in the appellate Court after many long years of the trial. 44. The next objection even though P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated in the evidence that they have taken treatment with the private doctor Batcha and obtained wound certificates, the said doctor had not been examined in the court to prove the injuries alleged to have been sustained by them at the hands of the respondents in Annavasal Police Station and therefore, the charge under Sec.323, I.P.C. cannot be held to have been proved. We gave our anxious consideration to the above contention and find it extremely difficult accept the same. We gave our anxious consideration to the above contention and find it extremely difficult accept the same. In our opinion to prove a charge under Sec.323, I.P.C, namely, causing simple hurt, the opinion of the doctor is a must appears to be fallacious. Sec.319 of the Indian Penal Code defines hurt as follows: “Hurt: Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.” P.Ws.1 and 2 have graphically detailed the torture and ill-treatment meted out to them at the Annavasal Police Station by respondents 1 to 3 which had been stated by us in detail supra. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that pain would not have been caused to the body of a human being if a zinc pipe is placed on the stretched legs and standing on it another man rolls the same with his legs and also hitting him with lathies and fisting him and also by a person standing on the knees of another person and pressing the palms, using his full strength. In our opinion so far as proving the offence under Sec.323, I.P.C, the evidence of a doctor is a must appears to be unacceptable. We feel the court has to see the manner in which the pain has been caused and whether the evidence of the witness is convincing and acceptable. In the present case on hand, we are satisfied that by the torture mentioned above by the respondents severe pain would have been caused to P.Ws.1 and 2 and therefore the mere fact that the private doctor Batcha has not been examined in the trial court would not militate against the case of the complainant, and hold that the charge under Sec.323 has been proved beyond any doubt. .45. We are also unable to agree that the owner of Meera Jewellery, Vaa.Yee. Shanmugam Pillai and his son-in-law should have been examined as witnesses. It is highly improbable to expect a jewellery shop owner will come forward to give evidence against police personnel and involve himself in perennial fear and insecurity. Therefore, in our opinion the non-examination for the said persons will not affect the case of the prosecution in any way. The material on record discloses mere graver offences punishable under Sec.386, namely, extortion by putting a person in fear of death and grevious hurt have been committed by the accused. Therefore, in our opinion the non-examination for the said persons will not affect the case of the prosecution in any way. The material on record discloses mere graver offences punishable under Sec.386, namely, extortion by putting a person in fear of death and grevious hurt have been committed by the accused. However, the learned trial Magistrate has not chosen to frame any charge under Sec.386, I.P.C. against any of the accused, which makes it clear that he was only soft pedalling with the accused/ respondents and he had no serious intention to analyse the evidence in an elaborate manner. However, we are not inclined to order for a re-trial with a direction to frame a charge under Sec.386, I.P.C. after the lapse of so many years and no useful purpose would be served by doing so. .46. For all the reasons detailed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the view taken by trial Magistrate was not a possible view and it was a perverse infirm and palpably erroneous view. We are fully satisfied that the view taken by the Learned trial Magistrate was not a reasonably possible view on the evidence on record. The trial Magistrate made no attempt to discuss the evidence on record, but thrown the complaint on the only reason that P.Ws.2, 4, 6 and 7 have not been cross-examined. We are firmly of the view that the non-cross-examination of the above witnesses has caused no prejudice to the respondent- accused and the trial court was not justified in acquitting the accused of the offences with which they were charged by brushing aside the evidence of the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 and the reliable account of P.Ws.3 to 7. We are of the opinion that the approach of the trial Magistrate in disregarding the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 in toto merely on the ground some witnesses have not been cross-examined due to the fault of the accused respondents is manifestly erroneous and the conclusions drawn are wholly unreasonable and perverse. The major portion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution has not been challenged seriously in the appeal and we feel justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Magistrate as the view taken by him his not reasonably possible. The major portion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution has not been challenged seriously in the appeal and we feel justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Magistrate as the view taken by him his not reasonably possible. The reason given by trial Magistrate for acquitting the accused in our opinion is very flimsy in character and the same does not merit any consideration at our hands. We have already observed that the trial magistrate had not made any attempt to discuss the evidence in detail, but satisfied himself in basing his conclusion on the only ground that certain witnesses have not been cross-examined which in our opinion is totally misconceived, and cannot be supported, and by the conduct of the trial Magistrate justice has been miscarried. The trial Magistrate had grossly omitted to discuss many important points appearing in the evidence in his judgment which have been detailed by us in supra. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to find that respondents 1 & 2 have kidnaped P.Ws.1 and 2 from their houses on the fateful day with intention to cause them to be wrongfully confined, in lock-up and the first respondent assaulted P.Ws.1 and 2 with intention to dishonour them otherwise on grave and sudden provocation and all the respondents-accused wrongfully confined, P.Ws.1 and 2 for three days in the lock-up and caused simple hurt to them and the appeal deserved to be allowed. 47. In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is set aside. 48. The trial court had framed charge under Sec.323, I.P.C. (One count) only against the first respondent/ first accused, though evidence discloses that he caused simple hurt to P.W.2 also. We do not propose to make any comment on this, except saying the charge under Sec.323, I.P.C. against the first respondent stands proved. The charge against respondents 2 and 3 for the offence under Sec.323, I.P.C. (2 counts) also has been proved beyond any doubt. Hence, we find the first accused guilty under Sec.365, I.P.C. (2 counts), 355, I.P.C. (2 counts), 343, I.P.C. (2 counts) and 323, I.P.C. and convict him thereunder. The second accused/ second respondent is found guilty under Sec.365, I.P.C. (2 counts), 343, I.P.C. (2 counts) and 323, I.P.C. (2 counts) and convicted thereunder. Hence, we find the first accused guilty under Sec.365, I.P.C. (2 counts), 355, I.P.C. (2 counts), 343, I.P.C. (2 counts) and 323, I.P.C. and convict him thereunder. The second accused/ second respondent is found guilty under Sec.365, I.P.C. (2 counts), 343, I.P.C. (2 counts) and 323, I.P.C. (2 counts) and convicted thereunder. The third respondent/ third accused is found guilty under Sec.343, I.P.C. (2 counts) and 323, I.P.C. (2 counts) and convicted thereunder. 49. Since the accused are convicted for the first time, they have to be questioned regarding the sentence that is to be imposed on them. All the three respondents/ accused are present in Court and they have been questioned about the sentence to be imposed on them and their statements have been recorded and signatures obtained in the statement. The first respondent/first accused submitted he had put up 29 years of service. He is also maintaining the family of his two widowed sisters and except the salary he gets as Sub Inspector of Police, he has no other source of income. He prayed a sentence may be given which will not affect his job. The second respondent/second accused submitted that he may be excused and a lenient sentence may be given and he has no other thing to say. The third respondent/third accused represented that he has get four daughters, out of them two are of marriageable age and none of them is married, and there is no other person to protect them and therefore, lenient sentence may be given which will not affect his job. 50. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused was also heard on the question of sentence to be imposed on the accused. The conviction was imposed in the morning and the learned counsel for the accused prayed time till lunch recess. Time was granted and his submission was heard. The learned counsel for the accused stated that the respondents/accused 1 and 2 took P.Ws.1 and 2 to the police station on the instruction of their superiors, namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police-Venkataraman and the Inspector of Police, Arjunan and the accused have not taken P.Ws.1 and 2 of their own accord and they have duly obeyed the instructions of their superiors. The second accused belongs to scheduled caste. The second accused belongs to scheduled caste. So far as the third accused is concerned, he has got four daughters, out of them two are of marriageable age and none of them is married. All the accused are the sole bread winners of the respective families and therefore, lenient sentence may be imposed so that the accused may not lose their job. It is also submitted that the accused may be released under Probation of Offenders Act and they will not indulge in any criminal activity in future. The submission made by the accused 1 to 3 and their learned counsel have been considered carefully. After doing so, we are unable to be persuaded that lenient sentence can be imposed on the accused. All the accused are police personnel and they are the guardians of the liberties of the citizens of this country, which is a democracy. We have discussed in detail the various atrocities that have been committed by respondents 1 to 3 by abusing their position as police personnel, respondents 1 and 2 kidnaped P.Ws.1 and 2 from their houses on the fateful day all of a sudden without disclosing the reasons for which they have been taken to the Police Station, and without even registering a case. Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 have been put in the lock-up and detained for three days continuously even without their dress and they were not allowed to contact their relations or they were allowed to consult a lawyer. The fact that P.W.1’s son is an M.B.B.S. Doctor shows that he has given good education to his son and made him a doctor and he is a respectable landlord. Likewise P.W.2 is also a respectable landlord of his village. But, respondents 1 and 2 kidnaped P.Ws.1 and 2 in naked violation of law of the land thinking that they are the dictators and no one can question them and subjected P.Ws.1 and 2 to untold misery and torture. The first respondent by his conduct which is detailed in the judgment has also put P.Ws.1 and 2 to great shame and infamy. Respondents 2 and 3 have actively helped the first respondent to assault and torture P.W.1 and 2 and detain them in the lock-up for three consecutive days without dress. The first respondent by his conduct which is detailed in the judgment has also put P.Ws.1 and 2 to great shame and infamy. Respondents 2 and 3 have actively helped the first respondent to assault and torture P.W.1 and 2 and detain them in the lock-up for three consecutive days without dress. Further, the first respondent had demanded 120 grams of gold to be brought as in got and finding no other alternative to get away from the lock-up, P.Ws.1 and 2 had made arrangements through the son of P.W.1, namely, P.W.3 to bring the said 120 grams of gold with the help of P.Ws.5 and 7, namely, Subbiah and Shanmugaham. 51. At this juncture, it may not be out of place to refer to the conduct of the respondents at the time of the appeal. When the appeal was taken up, the learned counsel for the respondents accused have been asked to furnish the present address of the accused. The learned counsel pleaded helplessness and stated that he does not know their whereabouts. Thereafter, he was instructed to get their address from the police station where the accused served last by sending registered letters. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the accused sent registered letters, but they have been returned unserved as addressee not known. The learned counsel for the accused have filed the unserved registered letters in court. Thereafter, on the instructions of this Court, the Registry addressed the letters to the Director General of Police to get their addresses. The help of the Public Prosecutor was also taken, and ultimately the present address of the respondent accused have been ascertained and they have been brought to court. The above conduct of the respondent accused shows that they are least concerned about the prosecution of the appeal and they were very confident that nothing will happen to them and the case of the complainant will be thrown out in the appeal also as done by the trial Magistrate, blind folded and there is no necessity for them to contact their Advocate and given instructions for the proper prosecution of the appeal. 52. We are unable to see the reason as to how the caste of the second accused has anything to do with the imposition of sentence on him. 53. 52. We are unable to see the reason as to how the caste of the second accused has anything to do with the imposition of sentence on him. 53. Viewing the above conduct of respondents 1 to 3, we are firmly of the view that no lenient view can be taken and adequate and sufficient sentence shall be imposed on them so that it will be a caution to the other police personnel and will make them obey the law of the land and also respect the guarantees given under the Constitution of India. We are also unable to accept the prayer of the learned counsel for the respondents that they may be released on probation of good conduct. Making such an order would result in mockery of justice and make the public at large to lose conficence in the Courts of this land. 54. For the offence under Sec.365, I.P.C. (2 counts), the first respondent/ first accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years on each count and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 on each count and in default to undergo S.I. for one year on each count. For the offence under Sec.355, I.P.C. (2 counts), he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 18 months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 on each count and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of six months on each count. For the offence under Sec.343, I.P.C. (2 counts), he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 on each count and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of six months, on each count. For the offence under Sec.323, I.P.C. he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months, (total fine Rs.35,000). 55. For the offence under Sec.365, I.P.C. (2 counts) the second accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 on each count and in default to undergo S.I. for one year on each count. 55. For the offence under Sec.365, I.P.C. (2 counts) the second accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 on each count and in default to undergo S.I. for one year on each count. For the offence under Sec.343, I.P.C. (2 counts), he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000 on each count and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of six months on each count. For the offence under Sec.323, I.P.C. (2 counts), the second accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for nine months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 on each count and in default to under S.I. three months on each count. (Total Fine Rs.18,000). 56. For the offence under Sec.343, I.P.C. (2 counts), the third respondent is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 18 months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500 on each count and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of six months on each count. For the offence under Sec.323, I.P.C. (2 counts), he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 on each count and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months on each count. (Total fine Rs.7,000). 57. Out of the fine amount, if collected, a sum of Rs.25,000 each shall be paid as compensation to P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. 58. The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the three respondents/ accused shall run concurrently. AH the respondents are given two months’ time to pay the fine amount in the lower court. The warrants of committal to the prison authorities shall be issued by the registry of this Court. 59. 58. The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the three respondents/ accused shall run concurrently. AH the respondents are given two months’ time to pay the fine amount in the lower court. The warrants of committal to the prison authorities shall be issued by the registry of this Court. 59. Before parting with this case, it should also be observed that disciplinary enquiry shall be ordered to be taken against the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Venkataraman, who served at the time of the occurrence as the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pudukottai and was the person responsible for directing respondents 1 and 2 to kidnap P.Ws.1 and 2 to the Police Station without even registering a case as per the accused, it is also noticed from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that even through fervent appeals have been made to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Venkataraman, to take appropriate action against the respondents and even though he gave an assurance, no action has been taken and P.Ws.1 and 2 were left in the lurch ultimately which had compelled P.W.1 to file the private complaint seeking redress. We have already found Venkataraman, who served at the relevant time as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, is guilty of dereliction of duty and therefore appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken against him for the misdeeds he committed, by the concerned superior officers of the police department. Therefore, we direct that a copy of the judgment shall be sent to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu for initiating the appropriate disciplinary action against Venkataraman, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai at the time of occurrence and served as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ‘Q’ Branch, Tiruchy one year before, without any loss of time. 60. Special leave refused. 61. Since Arjunan, Inspector of Police is represented to be dead, no order is passed against him.