# Chidambaram Police Sub-Inspector and Others v. State represented by Superintendent of Police

HTML version: [https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0011)

## Report card

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).

- Register number: TN 31 CW 0003
- Case reference: Criminal Appeal Nos. 677 and 680 of 1997 (against Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993, Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore)
- Court and date: Madras High Court (Coram: N. Dhinakar, F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.), 28 November 2002
- Officer(s) at the material time: Mehboob Batcha (A1) (Sub-Inspector); S. Parthasaraty (A2) (Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer)
- Present service status: Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked: Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 348 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract): “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 …” (at para 30)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum: Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 3 years.
- Present status of the proceedings: No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
- Source orders: [Judgment / order (primary source)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26071083/); [Permanent link to this record](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0011)

**Record:** CW-2002-0011 (compiler id CWC-0498); case SWDERELI-007
**Title:** Chidambaram Police Sub-Inspector and Others v. State represented by Superintendent of Police
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: N. Dhinakar; F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 677 and 680 of 1997 (against Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993, Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore)
**Judgment:** 2002-11-28 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-05-30 (1992)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chidambaram; police station or unit: Chidambaram Town Police Station; Annamalainagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 218; IPC 348; IPC 330; IPC 323; IPC 343
**Officers (gated display forms):** Mehboob Batcha (A1) (Sub-Inspector); S. Parthasaraty (A2) (Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Chidambaram man; Chidambaram woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

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.

> 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 No. 31, are justified.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26071083/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 30
**display title redacted:** Chidambaram Police Sub-Inspector and Others v. State represented by Superintendent of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 677 and 680 of 1997 (against Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993, Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2002-11-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 677 and 680 of 1997 (against Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993, Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26071083/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SIs 218 IPC convictions for false cover-up records confirmed; appeals dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0011)