- (1.) This is a case of torture of a detenue in police custody. The opposite party was the Superintendent of Police at Karimganj in the year 2002. The allegations against him are that at his instance, the complainant's younger brother Subash Nandi @ Babul was arrested by the police officers in connection with Karimganj Police Station Case No.278 of 2000 under Section 147/ 448/ 427/ 5006/ 380 of the IPC on 20.6.2000. Arrest was made on 20.6.2000 and the detenue was released on bail on 21.6.2000 and during this period, the victim was mercilessly beaten by the Opposite party and his personal guards under the orders of the opposite party.
(2.) With the aforesaid allegations, the injured's sister Professor Mandira Nandi lodged a complaint on 22.6.2000 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj under Sections 342/ 323/ 325/ 34 IPC. The case was eventually transferred to the Court of learned CJM, Cachar, Silchar, as per the order of the High Court on the prayer of the police officer/accused. On such transfer, the complaint was registered as CR Case No. 105 of 2002 and cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 323 IPC. However, after trial the accused officer was acquitted. Hence, this appeal is by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal. 2.1 Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. Shri J Das, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that despite there being over-whelming evidence the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent. The learned counsel also submitted his written arguments. Per contra, Smt. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent justified the acquittal on the ground of discrepancy in the injury reports. It was also contended that although the victim had sustained minor injuries at the time of his arrest a case of custodial torture was foisted upon the superior officer, with exaggerated allegations. It was also pleaded that it is not a fit case to interfere in a judgment of acquittal after 12 years.
(3.) In order to establish the offences, the complainant examined altogether 7(seven) witnesses. PW-1 is the complainant herself, PW-2 is a co-detenue, PW-3 is the injured, PW-4 is an independent witness, PWs 5, 6, and 7 are the medical officers, who had examined PW-3 in different hospitals and on different dates.;