CW-1963-0002Sri Sathya Sai, Andhra PradeshJudgment 9 May 1963

The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kadiri Police Sub-Inspector of Police and others

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order acquitting three police officers and convicted all of them under Section 330 IPC for torturing a Kadiri man to extort information regarding stolen property. A Kadiri man was taken into custody on 6 January 1957 and subsequently found dead with multiple injuries. The Supreme Court restored the Sessions Judge assessment of circumstantial and witness evidence, observing that deterrent sentences must be inflicted for such barbarous methods, and sentenced the Sub-Inspector, Head Constable, and Constable to five years rigorous imprisonment each. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 9 May 1963 in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1961, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: K.C. Das Gupta, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, JJ.) recorded the conviction of 3 police personnel, namely: Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli Police Station; Head Constable, Vempalli Police Station; Police Constable, Vempalli Police Station.

Register number
AP 39 CW 0003
Case reference
Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1961 / 1964 AIR 33, 1964 SCR (3) 742
Court and date
Supreme Court of India (Coram: K.C. Das Gupta, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, JJ.), 9 May 1963
Officer(s) at the material time
Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli Police Station; Head Constable, Vempalli Police Station; Police Constable, Vempalli Police Station
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“A serious view cannot but be taken of such a barbarous method of dealing with persons suspected of a crime as was committed by these respondents in this case. It is necessary that deterrent sentences should be inflicted for such …” (at para 64-65)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Conviction entered by Supreme Court. Sentence: imprisonment; maximum substantive term of 5 years.
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Supreme Court of India judgment dated 9 May 1963 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
Custodial torturePrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“A serious view cannot but be taken of such a barbarous method of dealing with persons suspected of a crime as was committed by these respondents in this case. It is necessary that deterrent sentences should be inflicted for such …” (para 64-65)

Institutional response

1
9 May 1963

Order issued

Concluded
Supreme Court of India External · Binding

The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: 1964 AIR 33, 1964 SCR (3) 742
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.