W.P. No. 15794 of 2003. Case: S. Anand Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Chennai-9 and Others. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 15794 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: J. Antony Jesus, Adv. and For Respondents: K.V. Dhanapalan and D. Krishakumar, Advs. |
| Judges | S. Manikumar, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 200, 357, 357(1), 357(3); Constitution of India - Articles 142, 20, 21, 22(1), 225, 226, 32, 5; Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (IPC) - Sections 306, 324, 330, 331, 342 |
| Citation | 2012 (4) RCR 833 (Cri) |
| Judgement Date | July 02, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
S. Manikumar, J.
1. Though Courts in India, have time and again have indicted "Men in Uniform" who indulged in custodial and human rights violations, and issued directions to bring out a change in the attitude of police personnel to recognise and respect human and fundamental rights, the directions are flouted by some "Men in Khaki" with impunity. A victim who suffered torture, bodily injuries, humiliation, violation of human rights at the hands of the Inspector of Police (L & O), Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District, 5th respondent herein, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Human Rights and Social Justice C.I.D., which is under the control of the Additional Director General of Police, Human Rights and Social Justice CID, Anna Nagar West, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, to investigate the matter, on the basis of his complaint dated 14.05.2003 and prosecute the 5th respondent and other policemen, who illegally detained and brutally attacked the petitioner and prayed for a further direction to the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Home, St. George Fort, Chennai-9, 1st respondent herein, to pay compensation of ` 5,00,000/- to the petitioner for the atrocities committed by its employees against the petitioner and also sought for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3, to take departmental action against the 5th respondent and other policemen who abetted him.
2. During the course of hearing, Mr. D. Krishna kumar, Learned counsel for the 5th respondent, brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner's mother namely, S. Mallika had already preferred a petition under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 30 of the Human Rights Act, 1993, and the designated Human Rights Court, Viz., Learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Madurai, who took cognizance of the same in C.C. No. 6/2004, upon trial, has found that the 5th respondent has violated the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, tortured and fractured the right thumb of the petitioner, PW5 in the above-said criminal case, and ultimately, convicted the 5th respondent, under Section 324 IPC read with Section 30 of the Human Rights Act, to pay a fine of ` 4,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. He also submitted that out of the fine amount, the Criminal Court has ordered ` 3,500/- to be paid towards compensation, to PW5, the petitioner herein, under Section 357(1) Criminal Procedure Code.
3. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that being aggrieved by the same, the 5th respondent filed a Criminal Appeal No. 102/2004 before this Court and that the same has been dismissed as withdrawn. Thus the conviction and sentence imposed on the 5th respondent has reached finality. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that all the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition have already been adjudicated and ordered by the criminal court. Listing out the same, he submitted that though the petitioner has sought for an Investigation by the Human Rights and Social Justice C.I.D., which is under the control of the Additional Director General of Police, Human Rights and Social Justice CID, Anna Nagar West, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, mother of the petitioner has already filed a petition under Section 200 read with Section 30 of the Human Rights Act, 1993, and that the allegations of illegal detention, torture etc., have already been enquired into and that the 5th respondent has been tried by a criminal court and convicted. He farther submitted that departmental proceedings were initiated in P.R. No. 104/2005, and on completion of enquiry, vide order in Rc. No. B1/1361/EOW/2007 dated 11.02.2008, of the Inspector General of Police, EOW-II, Chennai-2, a punishment of censure had already been awarded. The criminal court and the department did not find any incriminating materials against other policemen and therefore, no action was taken. The writ petitioner, PW5 in the criminal court has also been awarded compensation of ` 3,500/- by the criminal court out of the fine amount and that he has not chosen to file any appeal, seeking for any enhancement. He also submitted that during the trial before the Criminal Court, the petitioner has suppressed the filing of this writ petition, claiming compensation and therefore, he has not approached this Court with clean hands. For all these reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. This Court has gone through the judgment in C.C. No. 6/2004 on the file of the Learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Madurai and is of the view that there is no necessity for this Court to readjudicate as to whether there was any torture, violation of fundamental and human rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. On the aspect of illegal detention, torture, humiliation, violation of human rights, the averments made in the writ petition and the complaint are more or less the same. However, the facts pleaded in this writ petition and deduced by the criminal court, after considering the evidence of the mother of the petitioner and others in C.C. No. 6/2004 on the file of the Learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Madurai, requires reproduction. -
She had deposed that on 17.04.2003, the Inspector of Police, Kalifulla along with constables took her son Anand in a Jeep to Kadupatti Police Station and they refused Mari to see the other son Anand in the police station and he was informed that Anand was taken to Sholavandan police station on 18.4.2003 and again he came to know that the police have taken Anand to Kadupatti police station on 19.4.2003 and no one was allowed to see him and that on 21.4.2003 at about 2.00 a.m. Inspector Kalifulla along with policemen came to her house and took her and her minor daughter Priya in the jeep and since the ward member Pandian and other neighbours protested for taking the ladies in the mid night the Inspector of Police dropped her and her daughter from the jeep and also abused in filthy language and took her son Mari in the police jeep and sent back after half an hour and that she had sent several telegram to higher officials and also preferred complaint to the Human Rights Court on 21.4.2003 and that her son Anand came from the police station on 22.4.2003 at about 12.00 mid night and from him she came to know that the police have tortured him and also beat him and his right thumb was fractured due to the torture given by the Inspector of Police and that there was contusion all over the body of her son Anand and the right thumb was swollen and he could not even take his meals and that she took her son Anand to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, on 23.4.2003 and admitted him for treatment and he was admitted as an inpatient for 21 days and operation was conducted on the right thumb and plates were inserted. She has further stated that since right thumb was fractured he could not drive the car as before. She has also produced Ex. P1 series of acknowledgement card and postal receipt for the complaint she has preferred to the Human Rights Court and other higher police and revenue officials. Ex. P2-series is the copy of the complaint preferred by the petitioner to Home Secretary, Tamil Nadu Government and Ex. P3 is the acknowledgement card for the complaint sent to Additional D.G.P. and also to Human Rights Judge, and that Ex. P4 is the medical records to show that her son Anand was treated at the Government Rajaji Hospital and an operation was conducted for his right thumb.
4. The discussion on the evidence let in by PW1- mother of the victim and others, including PW5- the petitioner herein and the finding of the Human Rights Court, culminating into conviction and imposition of fine and payment of compensation from out of fine directed to be paid to the petitioner under Section 357(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, are extracted hereunder:-
THE POINT: - The only point for determination is whether the accused had beat PW5 Anand and caused grievous injury to his right thumb as alleged by the complainant. There was a case registered as girl missing at Sholavandan Police Station. It was alleged that one Pandiarajan kidnapped a girl at Sholavandan. PW5 is a taxi driver. The accused who was the Inspector of Police Sholavandan Police Station for the purpose of investigation in the said Kadupatti case took PW5 to the police station on the pretext of enquiry, on 17.4.2003. This fact was spoken to by PW1, the mother of PW5 Anand PW2 the brother of Anand, and PW3 the sister of Anand and PW4 the ward member of Sholavandan and also by PW5 Anand himself. PW2 the brother of PW5 had deposed that since Anand did not return to the house he along with PW4 a ward member of Sholavandan Panchayat went to Kadupatti Police Station on 18.4.2003, to Sholavandan Police Station on 19.4.2003. O 20.4.2003 to Samayanallur Police Station to see his brother and his brother Anand returned to his house only on 22.4.2003 midnight with swelling all over his body. The fact that the brother of PW5 Anand Viz., Mari went to the abovesaid police station in search of Anand was corroborated by PW4 Pandian a ward member of Sholavandan Panchayat. PW5 the victim Anand has categorically stated what had happened to him from 17.4.2003 to 21.4.2003 in Kadupatti Police Station. He has stated that with the help of waist rope the accused Inspector of Police tied his right thumb bending backward and beat with lathi causing fracture on the right thumb and due to it he could not even take his meals with the help of right hand and he has also spoken to the fact that on the pretext of interrogation the Inspector of Police, Kalifulla beat him with lathi all over his body and only after hearing the news through telephone that missing girl was rescued he allowed him to go to his house in the midnight of 21.4.2003 and that he came to the house that on seeing injuries all over...
To continue reading
Request your trial