JUDGMENT: This case relates to a sordid story in which the members of the Law Enforcing Agency have taken law into their own hands and beat a tea shop owner brutally with weapons causing about 18 injuries all over the body in the police station itself after locking the doors and windows inside, thereby became ‘Law Breakers’. 2. The facts, which are so agonising are as follows: “(a) Arulsamy, the victim was having a tea shop in Karaikudi town. On 10.4.1991 evening, the accused persons, the police officers attached to Karaikudi police station came to the tea shop and removed a bench and a chair, which were put in front of the said shop and took them to the police station. When the complainant came to know of this, he went to the police station along with his father-in-law P.W.2 Mani to get back the bench and chair. (b) When the complainant asked for the return of the bench and chair, the Sub Inspector of Police, the first accused abused him in a filthy language and violently fisted on his left cheek. When P.W.2 father-in-law attempted to enter into the police station, he was prevented from coming inside the police station and the doors and windows were then closed. Thereafter, the complainant Arulsamy was stripped and made naked. Then, the accused 1 to 6, all in their uniforms, started hitting the complainant with lathis, belts and handcuffs and also stamped him with their boots. In that process, the complainant was relieved of his gold chain, two gold rings, one watch and cash of Rs. 5,090 and a railway cheque for Rs. 44,698. (c) Immediately, telegrams were sent to the higher officials on the very same date. The victim was taken to the hospital with a police memo. Since the complainant suffered serious injuries, he was hospitalised for four days in the Karaikudi Government Hospital. Then, he was taken to the Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. (d) After he was discharged, he sent petition after petition to the higher officials. Though an enquiry was conducted, no action was taken against the culprits. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused 1 to 6 for the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 342, 323, 335 and 395, I.P.C”. 3. (d) After he was discharged, he sent petition after petition to the higher officials. Though an enquiry was conducted, no action was taken against the culprits. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused 1 to 6 for the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 342, 323, 335 and 395, I.P.C”. 3. During the course of trial, on the basis of the evidence let in by the prosecution, the trial Court framed charges against the first accused under Secs.323, 342, 324 and 379,I.P.C. and against others under Secs.342 and 324,I.P.C. Then, witnesses were recalled and cross-examined. 4. The accused stated in the questioning under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. that the complainant came to the police station and picked up quarrel with the Sub Inspector of Police and therefore, he was arrested and while resisting the arrest, a minimum force was used and enquiry was conducted by the higher officials on the petition given by the complainant and in the said enquiry, it was found out that the complaint was false. 5. On considering the materials, the trial Court acquitted all the accused in respect of the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal challenging the acquittal. 6. Mr. Sugumar R. Rajulu, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the reasonings for the acquittal are not only improper, but also the material evidence have been overlooked and as such, the acquittal has to be set aside and the accused are liable to be convicted. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Munirathna Naidu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the materials available on record would not be sufficient to hold that the charges have been proved and when two views are possible, the one view which is in favour of the accused is to be preferred and therefore, the order of acquittal may not be interfered with. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the records. 9. Law is 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 on the evidence are reasonably possible. 9. Law is 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 on the evidence are reasonably possible. But, the above principle is not applicable, where the approach of the trial Judge in dealing with the evidence, while acquitting the accused, is manifestly erroneous and the reasonings for the said acquittal are perverse. 10. In other words, if the reasonings given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused are contrary to the weight of evidence, the Court of Appeal would be justified in discarding the same in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 11. Though this Court as appellate Court does not ordinarily interference with the order of acquittal, if it is found that relevant and reliable evidence on record has been ignored or brushed aside for reasons which are wholly unsustainable, this Court will not only be justified - but it will also be its duty - to interfere with the acquittal to make amends for the failure of justice. 12. It is the well established rule as laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court that while setting aside the judgment of acquittal, it is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the reasonings of the trial Court are palpably wrong and manifestly erroneous. If this Court answers the above question in the negative, the order of acquittal will not be disturbed. On the contrary, if this Court holds that the reasonings for acquittal cannot at all be sustained, then this Court could go into the process of reappreciation of the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion. 13. The above principles have been laid down by the Divisions Bench of this Court in State by Public Prosecutor v. Muthu and another, (1996) 2 L.W. (Crl.) 636, by referring to the various decisions of the Supreme Court. 14. In the light of the above legal situation, this Court has to first find out whether the reasonings for acquittal and the consequent finding are sustainable or not. 15. 14. In the light of the above legal situation, this Court has to first find out whether the reasonings for acquittal and the consequent finding are sustainable or not. 15. Let us now see the reasonings for acquittal: (1) P.W. 1, the complainant stated in the complaint that the first accused, Sub Inspector of Police fisted on the left cheek with his right hand. While deposing, he would state that the first accused with his left hand fisted on the right cheek. In the cross-examination, he stated that the first accused fisted on the left cheek with the right hand. This is a vital contradiction. (2) Though P.W.1 would state that all the accused attacked him with weapons all over the body, he could not say the details of the nature of the weapons and overt acts of each and every accused. Therefore, there is suspicion in regard to the manner of the occurrence. (3) P.W.1 stated that the accused used handcuff also for assaulting P.W.1. P.W.1 did not state about handcuff to the Doctor. (4) According to P.W. 1, the complainant, an injury was caused on the left eye due to beating and consequently, he had no clear vision. But, P.W.8 doctor would say that he did not find any eye injury and there is no indication that any treatment was given for eye. Therefore, the version of P.W.1 that eye vision was affected due to beating cannot be believed. (5) According to P.W. 1, while he was in the police station, his lawyer Kaliappan sent telegrams. P.W.6 would state that he sent telegrams on the advice of the lawyer. P.W.3 would say that he did not see lawyer when he visited the police station. P.W.5, the servant of P.W. 1 would say that the lawyer went to the police station and then came back to the shop and enquired him about the incident. The telegrams sent which have been marked as Exs.P-2 and P-3 would show that since bribe amount was not given, the Sub Inspector of Police beat him in the police station. This is against the case of prosecution. The case of the defence is that P.W.1 came to the station and picked up quarrel with the Sub Inspector and therefore, he arrested and while arresting, minimum force was used. (6) Though P.Ws. This is against the case of prosecution. The case of the defence is that P.W.1 came to the station and picked up quarrel with the Sub Inspector and therefore, he arrested and while arresting, minimum force was used. (6) Though P.Ws. 1 and 2 would say that he sent petitions to the higher officials relating to the incident and produced acknowledgments Exs.P-6 to P-12, the copies of the petitions sent to the higher officials have not been filed. (7) Though the occurrence took place on 10.4.1991, the complaint was filed only on 12.8.1991 with a considerable delay. This is not explained properly. (8) P.W.2 admitted that when the incident took place, the Inspector and D.S.P. came to the police station, but he did not give any complaint to them. So, there is suspension in regard to the incident. (9) Though properties were taken away, those things were sent to the Court and as such, it cannot be said to be theft of the properties. (10) There is no independent witness. 16. While going through these reasonings, in the light of the materials available on record, it is clear that the trial Court has not only misread the evidence and failed to adopt the judicial approach, but also overlooked and ignored the vital and relevant materials. 17. It is also to be pointed out that these reasonings despite the availability of the materials in abundance, which are flimsy and flippant would go to show that the trial Court shut its eyes and tied its own hands to allow the real culprits to escape form the cluthes of law. 18. The overall picture projected by the prosecution through the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P-1 to P-12 would depict an incident involving a sorry state of affairs held in the police station itself which is situated at the heart of the town near the bus stand. Without considering the serious nature of the offences, which had been committed at the police station the trial Court gave the above reasonings for acquitting the accused, most of which are manifestly wrong and demonstrably unsustainable. 19. At the risk of repetition, I would rather say, the trial Court has misapppreciated the materials on record by misreading the same, while losing sight of the acceptable ocular testimony corroborated by the medical testimony. 20. 19. At the risk of repetition, I would rather say, the trial Court has misapppreciated the materials on record by misreading the same, while losing sight of the acceptable ocular testimony corroborated by the medical testimony. 20. Let us now analyse as to how the reasonings given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused are so palpably wrong. 21. According to P.W.1, the first accused with the right hand fisted on the left cheek. Though in chief examination, it is stated that he used left hand causing injury on the right cheek, it was elicited in the cross-examination that A-1 with the right hand fisted on the cheek, which is in consonance with the complaint. This cannot be taken as a contradiction, since P.W.2, the father-in-law also would state that the first accused with right hand fisted on the face. Furthermore, the Doctor P.W.7 had found injury on the face, right cheek, nose, etc., mentioned in Ex.P-1, the wound certificate. So, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is clear that the accused with the hand fisted on the face of the victim, as a result of which there were injuries. Though P.W.1 would state that the first accused used left hand for fisting, P.W.1 in the cross and P.W.2 in his evidence would correctly state that the first accused used right hand for fisting on the face. Without considering this evidence, the trial Court gave unnecessary importance to a minor discrepancy. 22. The trial Court entertained suspicion on the evidence of P.W.1 merely because of P.W.1 could not say the details of the weapons and the particulars of the overt acts of each and every accused. This reasoning is quite preposterous. As a matter of fact, P.W.1 would state that he was stripped and made naked and he was attacked by all the accused with the belt, lathi kambu and handcuff. During the course of cross-examination, he stated that he would not be able to state as to who beat him, on what part and with which weapon. This is quite natural. When the accused persons along with some others rounded up the victim and went on beating, the victim would normally cry and he would not be able to notice the role played by each and every one. The evidence of P.W. 1 is quite natural in stating that all the accused attacked. This is quite natural. When the accused persons along with some others rounded up the victim and went on beating, the victim would normally cry and he would not be able to notice the role played by each and every one. The evidence of P.W. 1 is quite natural in stating that all the accused attacked. Therefore, it cannot be stated that on this reason, P.W.1 should be disbelieved. 23. The other reasoning is that P.W.1 did not refer about handcuff, while he stated to the Doctor. The reading of the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 would show that all the accused attacked with lathi kambu and handcuff chain. P.W. 7, the Doctor would state in the chief examination that P.W. 1 stated to him that he was assaulted by the police personnel at the police station with lathi kambu, belt and chain. The relevant portion is this: He would further state that the injuries found in Ex.P-1, the wound certificate and Ex.P-4, the accident register, would be caused by the weapons alleged to have been used. Therefore, the omission of the word “handcuff” in the evidence of Doctor would not be enough to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7, especially when P.W.1 stated to Doctor that chain was used. 24. The trial Court would find that though P.W. 1 stated in the evidence that he was attacked on the left eye and there was an injury on the left eye, due to which, his left eye vision was affected, this is not corroborated by the evidence of P. W.8 Doctor, as he stated that he did not find any injury. 25. This finding is against the evidence available on record. It is the case of P.W.1 that A1 attacked him and due to that, he sustained injuries on eye and cheek. P.W.3 Michael, the son of P.W.2 stated that when P.W.1 was in the police station, he was found with injuries and one of the injuries was contusion with bleeding injury near the eye. The occurrence took place at 8:30 p.m. on 10.4.1991 at the police station. The victim was examined by P.W.7 Doctor on 11.4.1991 at about 3.00 a.m. P.W.7 Doctor found several injuries all over the body. The first injury as found in Ex.P-1, the wound certificate and Ex.P-4, the accident register is a sub conjuctival haemorrhage in the left eye. The occurrence took place at 8:30 p.m. on 10.4.1991 at the police station. The victim was examined by P.W.7 Doctor on 11.4.1991 at about 3.00 a.m. P.W.7 Doctor found several injuries all over the body. The first injury as found in Ex.P-1, the wound certificate and Ex.P-4, the accident register is a sub conjuctival haemorrhage in the left eye. Besides that, P.W.7 Doctor would specifically state in the deposition that he was found with injury on the eye and for eye treatment, he was sent to the Rajaji Hospital on 16.4.1991 after four days. P.W.8, who was working in Madurai Rajaji Hospital, was asked to take test for the eye. Though as per Ex.P-5, he did not find any injury on the eye, he admitted that he was sent to the Rajaji Hospital only for getting treatment for eye injury. On 10.4.1991, P.W.7 found eye injury on P.W. 1. Only for taking eye treatment, P.W.7 sent him to the Rajaji Hospital. P.W.8 examined P.W.1 only on 18.4.1991 and on that day, he did not find any injury. 26. The trial Court instead of referring to the evidence of P.W.7, the Doctor, which would corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, chose to refer to the evidence of P.W.8 alone. When there is a clear evidence about the eye injury on the basis of the reports Exs.P-1 and P-4 and the evidence of P.W.7, who immediately saw the injury and gave treatment, there is no reason as to why the trial Court ignored the said evidence. This shows that the trial Court chose to acquit the accused persons, who happen to be the police officials for some reason or the other. This injudicious approach is obvious, while analysing this reasoning. 27. The trial Court would give much importance about the presence of an Advocate. It is also stated that the case put forward through telegrams Exs.P-2 and P-3 relating to the demand of the bribe is quite contradictory to the case of prosecution. 28. This reasoning also, in my view, is palpably wrong. When P.W.1 was being beaten in the police station after locking the doors and windows, P.W.2 immediately contacted his lawyer Kaliappan and sent telegram. 28. This reasoning also, in my view, is palpably wrong. When P.W.1 was being beaten in the police station after locking the doors and windows, P.W.2 immediately contacted his lawyer Kaliappan and sent telegram. According to P.W.2, the occurrence took place between 8.00 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. and on getting legal advice from Kaliappan, he immediately sent telegram to the higher officials between 9.00 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. This telegram has been marked as Ex.P-10. This telegram contains the following wordings: “Karaikudi South Police assaulted my son-in-law Arulsamy tonight and beat him. Condition serious. Pray protection to his life.” This is the earliest document, which was sent on the very same night. It is seen that P.W.2 alone accompanied P.W.1 when he went to the police station for getting back the bench and chair. 29. The other telegrams are Exs.P-2 and P-3 sent by P.W.6 Pandithurai, a Municipal Councillor, the brother of P.W.2, next day i.e., on 11.4.1991. In those telegrams, it is stated that the Sub Inspector Kuppusamy demanded bribe money from Arulsamy and on his refusal, Arulsamy was taken to police station and being tortured inside the police station. 30. It is true that the theory of demand of bribe has not been projected by the prosecution. In other words, it is the consistent case of prosecution that P.W. 1 went along with P.W.2 to police station and asked for the return of the bench and chair removed from his tea shop and at that time, at the police station itself, P.W.1 was beaten by the Police officials. P.W.6, the brother of P.W.2 was not allowed to meet P.W.1 when he was inside the police station. Next day early morning, he was taken to hospital and there, he was given treatment. P.W.6 was not able to meet P.W.1 either in the police station or in the hospital before he sent these telegrams Exs.P-2 and P-3. Ex.P-2 was sent to the Governor and Ex.P-3 was sent to Mr.P. Chidambaram, ex.M.P., New Delhi. 31. The particulars given in these telegrams regarding bribe money need not be given importance because P.W.6, who sent telegrams, did not know as to why P.W. 1 was taken to the police station and beaten. Ex.P-2 was sent to the Governor and Ex.P-3 was sent to Mr.P. Chidambaram, ex.M.P., New Delhi. 31. The particulars given in these telegrams regarding bribe money need not be given importance because P.W.6, who sent telegrams, did not know as to why P.W. 1 was taken to the police station and beaten. But, the fact remains that P.W. 1 was detained in the police station and tortured by the Sub Inspector of Police and others was informed by P.W.6 through telegrams Exs.P-2 and P-3 to the Governor of the State and also to the political leader of a party to which P.W.6 belongs. These telegrams were sent only on 11.4.1991. But, Ex.P-10 was sent by P.W.2 on 10.4.1991 night itself. This gives the correct details, which are in consonance with the prosecution case. Moreover, it is the evidence of P.W.21 that he went to the police station along with P.W.2. 32. Thus, the trial Court gave importance unnecessarily to the reason for the torture given in Exs.P-2 and P-3 sent by P.W.6. If P.Ws.1 and 2 wanted to take advantage of the wordings contained in Exs.P-2 and P-3, which were sent on 11.4.1991, they would have very well stated in the complaint or before the Court that the accused demanded money as bribe for returning the branch and chair. But, P.Ws.1 and 2 would not choose to make improvements on the basis of Exs.P-2 and P-3. Therefore, it shall be held that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would clearly corroborate the contents of Ex.P-10, the earliest document. 33. Yet another reasoning by the trial Court is that though the acknowledgments have been filed for having received the petitions Exs.P-6 to P-12 sent by P.Ws.1 and 2 to the higher officials, the copies of those petitions have not been filed. This, in my view, is another ludicrous reasoning. As pointed out above, Ex.P-10 is the earliest document in this case, which is the telegram sent on 10.4.1991 at about 9.00 p.m. by P.W.2. In the said telegram, it has been specifically stated that Arulsamy (P.W.1) was being beaten by the Karaikudi South Police and his condition was serious. This, in my view, is another ludicrous reasoning. As pointed out above, Ex.P-10 is the earliest document in this case, which is the telegram sent on 10.4.1991 at about 9.00 p.m. by P.W.2. In the said telegram, it has been specifically stated that Arulsamy (P.W.1) was being beaten by the Karaikudi South Police and his condition was serious. It is also admitted by the defence that on the complaint of the prosecution party sent to the higher officials, an enquiry was conducted by the higher officials, who examined both the victim and the accused officials and finally, a report was sent in favour of the accused. When such being the case, it cannot be said that the non-filing of the copies of the complaints given to the higher officials would be fatal to the prosecution. It is quite a mockery to state that the acknowledgments marked in this case, which have been received by various police officials and the Courts, would not be enough to show that those acknowledgments were in respect of the receipt of the petitions reporting about the incident in question. As mentioned earlier, but for the receipt of these petitions, there would not have been any enquiry as admitted by the accused. That part, Ex.P-10 would contain the said contents. 34. The other reasoning is delay in launching the complaint. The occurrence took place on 10.4.1991. P.W.1 was hospitalised in Karaikudi Government Hospital for four days. Thereafter, he was taken to the Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. After getting treatment, he was discharged thereafter. Then, he was sending petition after petition to the higher officials. This is clear from the acknowledgments marked as Exs.P-6 to P-12 in this case. Furthermore, P.W. 1 would state that though the occurrence took place on 10.4.1991, he filed the complaint only on 5.8.1991 and during the five months’ interval, he sent complaints to the higher officials, Governor and to the other Government Machineries and after receipt of the complaints, an enquiry was conducted by the police officers. This evidence and other documents would clearly show that P.W.1 waited for the result of the enquiry and since no action was taken against the accused officers, P.W.1 filed a private complaint. Therefore, the delay has been properly explained and as such, the same cannot be a ground for throwing out the entire prosecution case. 35. This evidence and other documents would clearly show that P.W.1 waited for the result of the enquiry and since no action was taken against the accused officers, P.W.1 filed a private complaint. Therefore, the delay has been properly explained and as such, the same cannot be a ground for throwing out the entire prosecution case. 35. One more reasoning is that the properties which were taken away from P.W.1, were sent to the Court and as such, it cannot be said to be a case of theft and therefore, the prosecution case cannot be accepted, in the light of the non-examination of the independent witness. 36. While giving this finding, the trial Court omitted to consider the very important aspect of the matter. According to P.W.1, he was beaten and his cash and gold chain and other things were taken away by the accused officers. It is the finding of the trial Court that the same were sent to the Court. For arriving at such a finding, there is no material. On the other hand, it is the suggestion made by the counsel for the accused to P.W. 1 that they attempted to give back the jewels, cash etc. which were taken away from P.W. 1, at the hospital to P.W.1, but P.W.1 refused to receive the same. This suggestion is denied by P.W. 1. The relevant portion is this: Further, there is no material available on record either in the cross-examination of the witnesses or in the defence that these properties were sent to the Court and the same were deposited in the Court. 37. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, when P.W.1 was beaten, the doors were closed and as such, the details as to what really happened inside the police station could be known only to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 also would state this. The other witnesses examined apart from P.Ws.1 and 2 are P.W.3 Michael, the son of P.W.2, P.W.4 Josepin Mary the wife of P.W.1, P.W.5 Susai, a worker working under P.W. 1, P.W.6 Pandithurai, the brother of P.W.2, and all would state about the happenings, which took place subsequent to the occurrence. Regarding the occurrence, no independent witness could be examined because, as noted above, the occurrence took place inside the police station, where P.W.1 was brutally beaten with various weapons by the accused officers after closing the doors and windows. 38. Regarding the occurrence, no independent witness could be examined because, as noted above, the occurrence took place inside the police station, where P.W.1 was brutally beaten with various weapons by the accused officers after closing the doors and windows. 38. In view of what is stated above, it is manifest that the trial Court has not considered the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 whose evidence is amply corroborated by the medical testimony of P.W.7 Doctor and on the other hand, by misreading the evidence, the trial Court has given a verdict in favour of the accused by acquitting them, thereby causing a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 39. Let us now discuss the entire case of the prosecution independently on appreciating the evidence available on record. 40. P.W.1 is the owner of the tea shop and P.W.5 Susai is working under him. On 10.4.1991, when P.W.5 was working in the tea shop, police officers attached to Karaikudi police station came to the tea shop and removed the stool and bench and took away. When P.W.1 came back to the shop, this was informed by P.W.5 at about 7.30 p.m. on the same day. Then, P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.2, the father-in-law of P.W.1, went to the police station. At the police station, P.W.1 alone was allowed to come inside and P.W.2 was asked to wait outside. When P.W.1 demanded the articles back, he was asked to wait initially. After waiting for half-an-hour, he requested the accused officer (A1) who abused him in a filthy language. A wordy quarrel ensued. Then, A-1 fisted on his face. P.W.1 raised hue and cry. On noticing this, P.W.2 was about to enter into the police station. In the meantime, all the accused persons closed the doors and windows and surrounded P.W.1 and beat him with chain, lathi kambu, etc. and caused injuries all over the body. P.W.1 cried aloud. 41. On hearing the news that P.W.1 was being beaten at the police station, P.W.3, Michael, P.W.4, the wife of P.W.1 and P.W.5 worker and others came to the police station. They were not allowed to enter into the police station. and caused injuries all over the body. P.W.1 cried aloud. 41. On hearing the news that P.W.1 was being beaten at the police station, P.W.3, Michael, P.W.4, the wife of P.W.1 and P.W.5 worker and others came to the police station. They were not allowed to enter into the police station. When P.W.4 wept and requested the police officers at least to show the face of P.W.1 to know whether he was alive or not, the police officers brought P.W.1 and showed him to the crowd gathered there in order to inform them that he is alive. At that time, the witnesses saw the injuries on his face. 42. In the meantime, P.W.2 sent a telegram to the Superintendent of Police. P.W.6, a Municipal Councillor, who happens to be the brother of P.W.2, came to the police station and re quested the police officials to send him to the hospital. Only at the intervention of the others, the accused officers sent the victim to the Government Hospital, Karaikudi with a memo. 43. P.W.7 Dr.Shanmugavel received the memo and gave treatment to the victim on admitting him in the Special Ward, Surgical Annex. He found the following injuries: (1) A sub conjuctival haemorrhage in the left eye. (2) A contusion over bridge of nose 1 cm x 3 cm. (3) A contusion over place of left nostric 3 cm x 2 cm. (4) An abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm over right cheek. (5) An abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm over Sternum. (6) A linear abrasion about 3 No. over anterior aspect of left chest measuring 2 cm x 1 cm. (7) Multiple abrasion of various measurements measuring 9 cm to 7.5 cm x 1 cm to 2 cm extending over left arm to left scapular area. (8) Two linear abrasion 3.5 cm x 1 cm over right inter scapular area. (9) An abrasion measuring 10 cm x 5 cm over right scapular area. (10) An abrasion 8 cm x 3 cm over right shoulder. (11) An abrasion 6 cm x 0.5 cm over right thumb to right wrist. (12) A contusion over right wrist and dorsum of right hand, (13) A contusion 3 cm x 2 cm over dorsum of left hand to left ring and index finger. (14) An abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm over left forearm. (11) An abrasion 6 cm x 0.5 cm over right thumb to right wrist. (12) A contusion over right wrist and dorsum of right hand, (13) A contusion 3 cm x 2 cm over dorsum of left hand to left ring and index finger. (14) An abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm over left forearm. (15) Two abrasion with peeled skin 8 cm x 2 cm over inner aspect of right thigh. (16) Multiple abrasion about 8 No. over left thigh measuring 4 cm to 6 cm x 5 cm. (17) An abrasion about 8 x 0.5 cm over left leg. (18) A contusion over left foot and right foot. 44. P.W.1 was hospitalised in Karaikudi Hospital for more than four days. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Rajaji Hospital at Madurai on 18.4.1991. After discharge, he sent petitions to the higher officials. Despite the enquiry there was no action. Hence, he filed a private complaint. 45. As indicated above, relating to the necessity for P.W.1 to go to the police station accompanied by P.W.2 is being spoken to by P.W.5, a worker working in the tea shop. When P.W.1 was inside the police station, P.W.2 was not allowed inside. At that time, the incident happened. According to these witnesses, P.W. 1 was beaten after closing the doors and windows. 46. It is not disputed by the accused that P.W.1 was beaten at the police station. On the other hand, it is the case of the defence through the statement under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. that P.W.1 came to the Police Station and picked up quarrel with the Sub Inspector of Police and therefore, the case was registered under Sec. 332, I.P.C. against him and then he was arrested after using a minimum force. 47. When such a stand was taken by the accused admitting the beating of P.W.1 at the police station, it is for the accused to explain as to why they had to resort to the beating. It is the case of the defence that a case was registered against him and he was arrested and the properties were taken by the accused to establish before the Court that the said case was registered and in that case, he was arrested. There are no details given by the accused as to what happened to that case. It is the case of the defence that a case was registered against him and he was arrested and the properties were taken by the accused to establish before the Court that the said case was registered and in that case, he was arrested. There are no details given by the accused as to what happened to that case. As a matter of fact, P.W. 1 would state that he did not go to the Court and he was not summoned in that case. The reading of the wound certificate Ex.P-1 would make it clear that P.W.1 sustained injuries all over the body. Ex.P-10 telegram would show that the higher police officials were brought to the notice that P.W.1 was being beaten by the Karaikudi police. Ex.P-1, the wound certificate also would show that P.W.1 was beaten by the police officials inside the police station on 10.4.1991 at about 8.30 p.m. The curious part of it is that he was sent to the hospital along with a police memo. In the police memo itself, it is mentioned that P.W.1 sustained injury at the police station due to beating. 48. When the incident of beating is admitted by the accused, the evidential burden shifts on the accused, in the light of the stand taken by them, to show as to why they had to beat and whether the beating would satisfy the ingredients of the word “minimum force”. 49. Furthermore, no details had been given as to registration of the case against P.W. 1. It is not the case of the defence that they investigated the said matter against P.W. 1 and the same was proceeded with. 50. Under those circumstances, there is no reason as to why the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has to be disbelieved. 51. As pointed out earlier, there is a specific suggestion put to P.W.1 that they attempted to give back the cash and jewels to P.W.1 at the police station itself. Admittedly, those properties were not received back by P.W.1. In that circumstance, it is for the accused to explain, in the light of their admission as to what happened to the case alleged to have been registered against P.W. 1 and to the properties removed from him. 52. Admittedly, those properties were not received back by P.W.1. In that circumstance, it is for the accused to explain, in the light of their admission as to what happened to the case alleged to have been registered against P.W. 1 and to the properties removed from him. 52. In view of the above fact situation, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment, which contains the erroneous reasonings which are perverse, has to be set aside and materials available on record projected by the prosecution through the witnesses and document clearly prove the charges framed against the accused. Accordingly, the order of acquittal is set aside and the first accused/first respondent is convicted for the offences under Secs.323, 342, 324 and 379, I.P.C. and A-2 to A6 are convicted under Secs.342 and 324, I.P.C. Thus, the appeal is allowed. 53. In regard to the question of sentence, opportunity shall be given to the accused. Therefore, all the accused are directed to be present on 30.11.2001 to enable them to give statement in regard to the sentence. Post on 30.11.2001. 54. As directed by this Court on 12.11.2001, the matter was posed for question of sentence on 30.11.2001. On that day, i.e., 30.11.2001, the first respondent alone was present and the other respondents were absent. Mr.Munirathina Naidu, the learned counsel appearing for all the respondents requested further time to produce the other respondents and on the adjourned date, all the respondents together can be heard on the question of sentence. Accordingly, as requested by the counsel for the respondents, the matter was adjourned for question of sentence to 10.12.2001. 55. When the matter was taken up on 10.12.2001, all the respondents were present. They were heard regarding the question of sentence. The counsel for the respondents requested this Court to show mercy in imposing punishment. He would also submit that the offence can be compounded at this stage. But, the counsel for the appellant/complainant would object stating that there cannot be compounding at the stage of questioning the accused in regard to sentence. However, the complainant as well as his counsel would request the Court to show mercy in considering the question of sentence as this Court may deem fit. 56. All the respondents have filed separate memos dated 10.12.2001 tendering unconditional apology for their acts. However, the complainant as well as his counsel would request the Court to show mercy in considering the question of sentence as this Court may deem fit. 56. All the respondents have filed separate memos dated 10.12.2001 tendering unconditional apology for their acts. The first respondent would state in his memo that his family consisting of mother, widowed sister, her children and his children depend on him, and prayed for indulgence. Similarly, all the other respondents in their respective memos would mention about the particulars of the family members who depend on them. 57. In the light of the above memos and the representation made by the counsel for the parties, appropriate punishment is to be imposed on the respondents. 58. As far as the respondents 2 to 6 are concerned, they were all Constables working under the first respondent on whose direction they acted. They have been convicted for the offences under Secs.342 and 324,I.P.C. The punishment provided for the offence under Sec. 342, I.P.C., is one year imprisonment or fine of Rs. 1,000 or both and the punishment provided for the offence under Sec. 324, I.P.C. is three years imprisonment or fine or both. 59. In view of the fact that the respondents 2 to 6 were acting under directions of the first respondent, who was their superior officer and also of the fact that their family members depend on them, I am of the view that the respondents 2 to 6 could be sentenced to pay fine alone. Accordingly, the respondents 2 to 6/A-2 to A-6 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence under Sec. 342, I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000 for the offence under Sec. 324, I.P.C. Thus, the respondents 2 to 6 are directed to pay the total fine amount of Rs. 5,000 each. In default, they will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and six months respectively. The time for payment is one month from today. 60. As regards the first respondent, it is seen from the records as stated in the above paragraphs that he was the main accused, who was mainly responsible for the cruel treatment meted out to the victim, the complainant in this case. The time for payment is one month from today. 60. As regards the first respondent, it is seen from the records as stated in the above paragraphs that he was the main accused, who was mainly responsible for the cruel treatment meted out to the victim, the complainant in this case. The first respondent being the Sub Inspector of Police, a member of the Law Enforcing Agency, instead of ensuring law and order resorted to the barbaric act of attacking the complainant at the police station, which is situated in the bus stand after closing the windows and doors of the police; station. Unless proper punishment is imposed on him for his inhuman act, which has been established, the ends of justice, in my view, would not be met. 61. As noted above, the first respondent has been convicted for the offences under Secs. 323, 342, 324 and 379, I.P.C. The offence under Sec. 323 is punishable with one year imprisonment or fine of Rs. 1,000 or both. Sec. 342 is punishable with one year imprisonment or fine of Rs. 1,000 or both. Sec. 324 is punishable with three years imprisonment or fine or both and Sec. 379 is punishable with three years imprisonment or fine or both. 62. The question of sentence is a matter of discretion. It is well settled that the discretion has to be properly exercised in the light of the accepted judicial lines. 63. Though the maximum punishment, could be imposed on the first respondent, in view of the fact that the occurrence had taken place 10 years before and the trial Court acquitted the accused on 13.9.1993 and the appeal was filed in 1993 and the same was pending for 8 years, I am of the opinion that the first respondent could be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence and accordingly, the above sentence is imposed on him. The sentences for all the four offences are directed to run concurrently. 64. Therefore, the first respondent alone is remanded to Central Prison, Chennai. The other respondents, as stated above, are directed to pay the said fine within the stipulated time. 65. The total fine amount to be paid by the respondents 2 to 6 would come to Rs. 25,000. The trial Court is directed to pay the said Rs.25,000 to the complainant Arulsamy as Compensation. 66. The other respondents, as stated above, are directed to pay the said fine within the stipulated time. 65. The total fine amount to be paid by the respondents 2 to 6 would come to Rs. 25,000. The trial Court is directed to pay the said Rs.25,000 to the complainant Arulsamy as Compensation. 66. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.