SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Ker) 219

Judges : P.JANAKI AMMA
Lakshmana Kunjhan - Appellant
Versus
C.R.Sulochana And Another - Respondent
Case No : Crl.M.P. No. 617 of 1977
Decided On : 09/23/1977
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: T. V. Prabhakaran and Miss Mary Dias, Advocates. For the Respondent: M. M. Cheriyan and Mathew Zachariah (for No. 1) and State Prosecutor (for No. 2).

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the necessity of sanction under S. 197, Cr.P.C. depends on whether the acts of torture are directly related to the discharge of the public servant's official duty.

Headnote:

Torture - Criminal Proceedings - Ss. 331, 344, 354 and 365 read with S. 109, I.P.C. - S. 197, Cr.P.C. - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a public servant, was accused of subjecting the complainant to torture during an investigation. The complainant alleged that she was taken to various police stations, tortured, and detained for 1 1/2 years under 'MISA'. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings on the grounds of lack of sanction, delay in filing the complaint, and lack of bona fides.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the acts of torture attributed to the petitioner did not have a direct relation to the discharge of his official duty, and thus, no sanction under S. 197, Cr.P.C. was necessary. The court dismissed the petitioner's argument that the complainant's detention under 'MISA' precluded her from challenging the acts of torture in a court of law.

Issues: The issues revolved around the necessity of sanction under S. 197, Cr.P.C., the complainant's challenge to her detention under 'MISA', and the petitioner's claim of lack of bona fides in the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no sanction under S. 197, Cr.P.C. was required as the acts of torture did not have a direct relation to the discharge of the petitioner's official duty. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the complainant's challenge to her detention under 'MISA', stating that it was premature to invoke the jurisdiction under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings on that ground.

Final Decision: The petition to quash the proceedings was dismissed by the court.

Judgment :-

The petitioner is the accused in P.E. 5 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Kozhikode. The proceedings against him were initiated on a private complaint. The gist of the complaint is as follows : The complainant is a resident of Purakkadi amsom in South Wynad. At 2 p.m. on 28-8-1975, two constable of the Batheri Police Station came to her residence and took her to the police station. There were two officers of the Crime Branch. She was kept in the lock-up At 11.30 p.m. she was removed to the Batheri Rest House. Two officer of the Crime Branch questioned her about the whereabouts of Damodaran Master and Madhu Master, the study classes conducted by them and also their different activities. She was herself ignorant about those things. On her failure to give proper replies, one of the officers of the Criminal Branch beat her on her face and different parts of the body. She was later on removed to the lock-up of the Batheri Police Station. At 9 p.m. on the next day, she herself and others in the lock-up were taken in a police van and on enquiry, she was told that they were being taken for being murdered. The police van stopped near the Nadakkavu Police Station. Those who were taken along with her got down at the Nadakkavu Police Station while she herself was taken to the Vanitha Police Station. She was interrogated by the same officer of the Crime Branch at the Vanitha Police Station also and an elderly officer asked her to remove her saree. She did not. There was another young officer who insisted for the removal of her saree. She obeyed. She was again asked about the whereabouts of Madhu Master and was removed to another room where there was an elderly man under the influence of liquor. He hit her head against the wall. She was made to sit on the floor and to stretch her legs. The young officer stood on her knees and asked another man to hit her on the sole of her feet. While the beating was going on, she was again interrogated. After continue torture, she was allowed to wear her saree. She was warned that she would be burnt to death the next day unless she told them the truth. The next day during night two Vanitha constables came to her and told her that she was wanted by their officer. Though she was not in a position to walk, she was dragged to the place where the accused was sitting. She was thereafter taken in the van to Chakkarathukulam Crime Branch-II Office and put in a room. There were Muhammadali, Bhaskaran, Aravindan and others who were in the van while she was brought to the Batheri Police Station. The accused who was there asked her to remove the saree. She removed the saree. Then he wanted the skirt to be removed. She complied. Thereafter the accused wanted her to remove the underwear. She refused. The accused then caught hold of her hair-lock and hit her head against the wall. When she persisted in her refusal to remove the underwear, the accused tried to remove it, but he could not. She then asked to stand near the wall facing the wall. The accused beat her with a stick beneath the knee. She fell down. Another person made her sit leaning on the wall. As she sat, a man stood on her knees and the accused started beating on the sole of her feet. During the process of beating, she was shown number of photographs and was asked to identify them. After beating, the accused asked the policemen present that she should not be let off and she should be beaten until she spoke out everything. Beating followed and she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she was in the Vanitha Police Station. The vanitha constables told her that the person who beat her was Lakshmana, the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode, the accused in the case. Thereafter, she was removed to the Control Room where her photographs were taken. Finally, after a few days, she was removed to the Central Jail at Cannanore. She was a detenue there for 1 1/2 years under 'MISA'. She was having marks of inju






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top