The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals of Sub-Inspectors (A1) and S. Parthasaraty (A2) arising from the illegal detention and torture of theft suspect a man from 30 May to 2 June 1992 and the gang-rape of his wife a woman by special-team policemen. The Court held A1 and A2 prepared false records (Exs.P-76 to P-78, including a false FIR as Crime No. 159/1992) to show a 2 June 1992 arrest and thereby save their subordinate constables. The Court confirmed their convictions under Section 218 IPC along with convictions under Sections 348, 330, 354 and 376(2) IPC against the appellants, acquitting only on the Section 220 charges. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
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 →By judgment dated 28 November 2002 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 677 and 680 of 1997 (against Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993, Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore), the Madras High Court (Coram: N. Dhinakar, F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of 2 police personnel, namely: Mehboob Batcha (A1) (Sub-Inspector); S. Parthasaraty (A2) (Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Madras High Court judgment dated 28 November 2002 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
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.
Holding not recorded separately.
“and the officers, in order to save their sub-ordinate police constables, prepared Exs.P-76 to P-78. Therefore, the conviction of A1 under Charge No. 30 framed u/s 218 IPC and the conviction of A2 for the same offence framed under Charge …” (para 30)
The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
(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.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.
