CW-1989-0001Bhiwani, HaryanaJudgment 31 January 1989

Prem Chand and Anr. vs State of Haryana

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of two Bhiwani police-post officials who raped the complainant inside Police Post Patram Gate after bringing her and her companion there from the bus stand on their way to Jammu. The trial court had convicted both policemen under Section 376(2) IPC with the 10-year minimum, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the convictions while acquitting the co-accused [name withheld]. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions but invoked the proviso to Section 376(2) to reduce each sentence from 10 to 5 years' RI, a ruling widely criticised for negating the 1983 minimum-sentence amendment; the State's review was dismissed. 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 31 January 1989 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 544-45 of 1986, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: B.C. Ray, S. Ratnavel Pandian, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of 2 police personnel, namely: Prem Chand; Police personnel, Police Post Patram Gate, Bhiwani.

Register number
HR 16 CW 0002
Case reference
Criminal Appeal Nos. 544-45 of 1986 / AIR 1989 SC 937; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 286
Court and date
Supreme Court of India (Coram: B.C. Ray, S. Ratnavel Pandian, JJ.), 31 January 1989
Officer(s) at the material time
Prem Chand; Police personnel, Police Post Patram Gate, Bhiwani
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of both these appellants as confirmed by the High Court, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment in respect of each of the appellants from 10 years to 5 years. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed …” (at para 7)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Conviction upheld. 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 31 January 1989 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.

“Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of both these appellants as confirmed by the High Court, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment in respect of each of the appellants from 10 years to 5 years. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed …” (para 7)

Institutional response

2
Date not established

Conviction

Concluded
Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment) External · Binding

The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: AIR 1989 SC 937; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 286
Not yet re-checked.
31 Jan 1989

Order issued

Concluded
Supreme Court of India External · Binding

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.

Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: AIR 1989 SC 937; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 286
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.