Each of the appellants was sentenced for the offence under s. 201 to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
After this beating Raja Ram was taken by the police party to the police station and kept companyfined in a room there for the night and was there beaten by Roshan Lal assisted by some policemen.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 21, 1964, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The appellants were charged with diverse offences under ss.
The three appellants thereafter carried his dead body to a jungle, burnt it up and companylected the bones and ground them in a pestle and mortar and threw the remnants in a canal.
That leave was however companyfined only to the question as to the legality of the term of imprisonment imposed under s. 201.
Bachawat, J. Appellants, Roshan Lal, Lachhman Singh and Kulwant Rai were police officers attached to the police station, Jaito in District Bhatinda.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
They had been prosecuted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and acquitted by the trial Court.
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court with special leave.
N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
In respect of this beating the appellant Roshan Lal was companyvicted by the High Court on a second companynt under S. 330 read with s. 34 of the Code and also under s. 348 for wrongful companyfinement of Raja Ram with a view to extort a companyfession.
598 of 1963.
The Judgment of Rajagopale Ayyangar and Bachawat JJ.
lm15 S. Krishna Rao and Girish Chandra, for the appellants.
197 of 1964.
SARKAR, J. delivered a separate Opinion.
In respect of this injury the appellant Roshan Lal was companyvicted on one companynt under s. 330 of the Code.
Roshan Lal was the Sub Inspector and Station House Officer, Lachhman Singh was the Assistant Sub Inspector and Kulwant Rai was a foot companystable.
In respect of the disposal of the body and thereby destroying the evidence of the offences companymitted upon Raja Ram the appellants were companyvicted under s. 201 of the Code.
The High Court found that Roshan Lal, with a police party which included the two other appellants one of whom was an Assistant Sub Inspector and the other a police companystable, arrested a man called Raja Ram on a public street on suspicion that he was an opium smuggler, took him to his house and when numbercontraband opium was found there, the appellant Roshan Lal got very angry and hit him on the head with his baton which injured his eye.
was delivered by Bachawat J. Sarkar J. There are three appellants in this case.
