CW-1995-0010Shimla, Himachal PradeshJudgment 7 February 1995

Himachal Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (in charge) and others vs State of Himachal Pradesh

The Supreme Court on 7 February 1995 dismissed on merit the appeals of ASI and Constable of Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla, upholding their convictions under Sections 217, 330 and 348 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court found that a Shimla man had been wrongfully confined at the police post from 30 August to 12 September 1975 and beaten with sticks to extort a confession in a theft case, and that his dead body was found on 17 September 1975. It held the constable's complicity proved beyond doubt and the ASI answerable as post in-charge acting with tacit consent and connivance. A third constable's appeal abated on his death; the Court left the convictions and sentences undisturbed and ordered no compensation.

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 7 February 1995 in Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 1989 with appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 965 of 1989 and 193 of 1990, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: Sujata V. Manohar, M. M. Punchhi, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of 3 police personnel, namely: Assistant Sub-Inspector (in charge), Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Police; Constable, Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Police; Constable, Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Police.

Register number
HP 03 CW 0003
Case reference
Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 1989 with appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 965 of 1989 and 193 of 1990 / AIR 1995 SC 1941; 1995 CriLJ 3223; (1995) 4 SCC 1
Court and date
Supreme Court of India (Coram: Sujata V. Manohar, M. M. Punchhi, JJ.), 7 February 1995
Officer(s) at the material time
Assistant Sub-Inspector (in charge), Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Police; Constable, Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Police; Constable, Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Police
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 348 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“The complicity of [name withheld] and [name withheld] in the commission of the crime thus stands proved beyond doubt.” (at para 5)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment.
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 7 February 1995 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.

“The complicity of [name withheld] and [name withheld] in the commission of the crime thus stands proved beyond doubt.” (para 5)

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 1995 SC 1941; 1995 CriLJ 3223; (1995) 4 SCC 1
Not yet re-checked.
7 Feb 1995

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 1995 SC 1941; 1995 CriLJ 3223; (1995) 4 SCC 1
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

0
Not yet re-checked.

No published follow-up check has been recorded for this incident.

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.