IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that public servants, including police officers, are entitled to protection under Section 197(2) of the Code if the alleged offences are reasonably connected with the discharge of their official duty, and no sanction is required for their prosecution in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

1. These appeals are at the instance of the complainant in C.C. No. 209 of 1997 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II (Mobile), Kottayam. The learned Magistrate convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence under Sections 452, 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Accused Nos. 1 and 4 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2003, accused No. 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2003 and accused No. 3 preferred Criminal Appeal 474 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II, Kottayam. The appellate court as per the common judgment dated 17.09.2010 allowed the appeals and acquitted all the accused. Correctness and legality of the said judgment are under challenge in these appeals filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).

2. Parties are referred to as they are positioned before the trial court.

3. The alleged incident occurred at 7.00 p.m. on 03.09.1996. The complainant alleged that while he was sitting in his house talking with his brother and a neighbour, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and an unidentified police constable came there in a jeep and tried to take into custody the complainant. His wife requested not to arrest him and children interrupted the arrest. They were manhandled by the accused and the complainant was taken forcibly into the jeep. While taking to the jeep the 1st accused slapped the complainant on his left face thrice and on the way to the police station, he was physically tortured by others in the jeep. Only at 9.30 p.m. he was released. The accused thereby committed the aforementioned offences.

4. On the basis of the said allegations the trial was held and the accused were found guilty, convicted and sentenced. The appellate court, on accepting the contentions of the accused held that they were prosecuted without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the Code, and accordingly allowed the appeals and acquitted the accused.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned Senior Counsel for the accused No. 2, the learned counsel appearing for accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. As stated, the incident occurred on 03.09.1996. The complainant was taken into custody and brought to the Pala Police Station. The case of the complainant is that at the instigation of one Jose he was illegally taken into custody, detained in the police station and manhandled. Only when Sri. Antony Plathottam, a local politician and Panchayat Member came to the Police Station, he was released, which was at about 9.30 p.m. Before that, he was subjected to medical examination on the pretext of ascertaining whether or not he was drunk. It is in evidence that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were probationary Sub Inspectors attached to Pala Police Station. The 3rd accused was the Head Constable there and the 4th accused was the Circle Inspector of Police.

7. The complainant gave evidence as PW-1 almost in terms of the allegations in the complaint. PW-2 is a neighbour of PW-1, to whom he was talking at the time of when was taken into custody. PW-6 is the brother of PW-1. Both PWs 2 and 6 testified about the incident. PW-3 is the wife of PW-1. She deposed that PW-1 was taken into custody and in that course himself, PW-3 and children were manhandled. PW-4, Sri. Antony deposed that on getting information regarding apprehension of the complainant, he went to the police station. According to him, the complainant was taken for medical examination by that time and thereafter he was released by the Circle Inspector of Police on bail. PW-5, who is a neighbour of the complainant deposed that at about 7.00 p.m. on 03.09.1996 he saw a few policemen taking to custody the complainant from his house. He, however, denied having seen the police manhandling the complainant. PW-7 is the Doctor, who examined the complainant at the Co-operative Hospital, Thodupuzha. The examination was on 05.09.1996, two days after the