25 Oct 2010
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: (2011) 6 SCC 369
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2010-0010Barmer, RajasthanJudgment 25 October 2010
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kishore Singh and Others
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Barmer man, a liquor-shop employee, was locked up at Sadar Police Station from 2 to 5 February 1994 without production before a Magistrate, beaten, and on 5 February 1994 his penis was chopped off with a razor inside the station. The trial court convicted all three policemen but the Rajasthan High Court acquitted the SHO and ASI and reduced the constable's sentence. The Supreme Court allowed the CBI appeals, set aside both acquittals, and held policemen who commit such crimes deserve harsher punishment than others. It sentenced constable Kishore Singh to 5 years RI under Section 326 with Rs 50,000 fine, ASI Sumer Dan to 3 years RI under Section 326/120B with Rs 50,000 fine, and SHO Sohan Singh to 6 months SI under Section 342 with Rs 10,000 fine, directing all fines to be paid to the victim as compensation. This Supreme Court judgment set aside the acquittals recorded in the High Court judgment covered by a companion record of this dataset; the final status of the accused police personnel under this judgment is convicted. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
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 →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 25 October 2010 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2047-2049 of 2010, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: T.S. Thakur, Markandey Katju, JJ.) recorded the conviction of 3 police personnel, namely: Kishore Singh (Constable); Sumer Dan (Assistant Sub-Inspector); Sohan Singh (SHO), and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1.1 lakh (Rs 1,10,000).
- Register number
- RJ 04 CW 0003
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal Nos. 2047-2049 of 2010 / (2011) 6 SCC 369
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: T.S. Thakur, Markandey Katju, JJ.), 25 October 2010
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Kishore Singh (Constable); Sumer Dan (Assistant Sub-Inspector); Sohan Singh (SHO)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In our opinion, policemen who commit criminal acts deserve harsher punishment than other persons who commit such acts, because it is the duty of the policemen to protect the people, and not break the law themselves.” (at para 31)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction entered by Supreme Court. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 5 years. Compensation: Rs 1.1 lakh (Rs 1,10,000).
- 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.
Current position
The Supreme Court of India judgment dated 25 October 2010 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
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.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“In our opinion, policemen who commit criminal acts deserve harsher punishment than other persons who commit such acts, because it is the duty of the policemen to protect the people, and not break the law themselves.” (para 31)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(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.