Crl. O.P. No. 20008 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013. Case: Tmt. R. Kasthuri Vs State. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberCrl. O.P. No. 20008 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: S. Sathia Chandran, Adv. and For Respondents: S. Shanmugha Velayudham, State Public Prosecutor
JudgesS. Nagamuthu, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 154, 164, 173, 174, 175, 176, 176(1), 176(1A), 190, 207, 435, 482; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 20(3), 21, 226; Indian Oaths Act, 1873 - Section 4; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 380, 457; Madras Revenue Enquiries Act, 1893 - Section 2
Judgement DateDecember 19, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)

Order:

S. Nagamuthu, J.

1. This is a case of custodial death. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased-Ravi. They belong to a Scheduled Caste. On 16.08.2010, at about 01.00 a.m., when her husband was with her at her house at Parinthal Village, few police constables barged into their house and took her husband in a vehicle. When the petitioner questioned them, they told her that they were taking him for the purpose of an enquiry in connection with a case. It is further alleged that they snatched away a gold chain from the petitioner and also removed certain other properties from her house. On 17.08.2010, she told her sister-in-law-Mrs. Chitra about the occurrence. She came to know that her sister-in-law's husband had also been taken to the police station. On 18.08.2010, according to her, seven police constables came to her house and forced her to sign in a blank paper. Then, to her shock, they informed her that her husband was no more and his body was kept in the mortuary of the Government Hospital at Cuddalore. They wanted her to appear for enquiry to be held by the Executive Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer. She further alleges that on 19.08.2010 at 05.00 a.m. she informed one Mr. Raju about the occurrence and also had discussion with the other leaders of her community in respect of the next action to be taken. After autopsy, the body of the deceased was handed over to her at 06.00 p.m. In this regard, she made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and others alleging that her husband had fallen a victim of police torture.

2. The respondent-Police, have a different story. According to the respondent police, one Mr. Thiruvengadam, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Pudupet Police Station was deputed for nabbing the accused involved in the theft case in Crime No. 95 of 2010 on the file of Nellikuppam Police Station. When the police party headed by Mr. Thiruvengadam was searching for him, at about 03.00 p.m. on 18.08.2010, the deceased was found moving on the road leading to Sathipattu Village. He was surrounded and taken into custody by the Sub Inspector of Police Mr. Thiruvengadam. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, confessing to his involvement in many occurrences involving theft. When personal search was made, it was found that he had tied to his hip eight sovereigns of gold jewels. It is further stated by the respondent police that the Sub Inspector of Police was taking him towards Nellikuppam. When they were nearing the village border of Sathipattu Village, the deceased-Ravi complained to the Sub Inspector of Police that he had developed chest pain and he wanted to urinate. Therefore, he was allowed to get down from the vehicle. On getting down from the vehicle, according to the police, he started running with a view to escape. So, the Sub Inspector of Police along with the other policemen, who were with him chased the deceased. While running fast, it is alleged that accidentally, he fell into a deep pit. On reaching the pit, the Sub Inspector of Police and other police constables found the deceased unconscious. He had sustained injuries on his right ankle and fingers. As a first aid, the police gave him water. But, he did not open his eyes. Therefore, the police rushed him to the Government Head Quarters Hospital at Cuddalore at 05.20 p.m. But, the Doctor who examined the deceased-Ravi declared him already dead. The body was sent to the mortuary.

3. On returning to the police station, the Sub Inspector of Police submitted a special report to the Inspector of Police narrating the above occurrence. On such report, the Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 135 of 2010 under Section 176(1A) of The Code of Criminal Procedure [herein after referred to as "the Code"]. Since it was a custodial death, the Inspector of Police forwarded the FIR to the Executive Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore. Simultaneously, as per the existing general instructions of the Director General of Police, Chennai, the FIR was forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti for holding an inquiry under Section 176(1A) of the Code. The Executive Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and then, forwarded the body for post-mortem examination. The Judicial Magistrate commenced inquiry as per Section 176(1A) of the Code. On 19.08.2010, at about 03.00 p.m., he held inquiry and recorded the statements of all the policemen involved in the occurrence. At about 05.00 p.m. the learned Magistrate visited the place of occurrence. He also examined two persons by name Anthoniraj and Shanmugam, who, according to the police, had witnessed the occurrence. He recorded the statements of the family members of the deceased including the petitioner herein. On 19.08.2010, the learned Magistrate visited the house of the deceased also. He examined a number of other witnesses. He completed the examination of the witnesses on 27.08.2010. In the meanwhile, the inquest report dated 25.08.2010 prepared by the Executive Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer was received by the learned Magistrate. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy, gave opinion as follows:-

"External in injuries:

1. Contusion over left popliteal fossa 10 x 5 multiple abrasion over it.

2. Abrasion over the penis

(a) at the root 1 x 1 cms.

(b) at the tip 3 x 2 cms

3. Abrasion in left ankle 1 x 1 cm.

4. Contusion over left sole 5 x 8 cm.

5. Abrasion on right knee 1 x 1 cm.

Internal injuries:-

(1) Contusion injuries (1) and (4) when opened has shown blood clots, muscle tears, intra-muscular bleeding.

(2) No abdomen injury, no fracture on ribs, no head injury or fracture on skulls, hyoid bone intact, no alcohol or poison found on viscera examination.

Opinion:

The deceased died due to myocardial infarction with polytrauma 12 to 36 hours prior to post-mortem."

4. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate, came to the following impression:-

The statement of victim's wife Kasthuri and her mother Periamma shows that the deceased Ravi was taken by the police on 16.08.2010 night, and these two witnesses were with him at that time. This fact was confirmed by the witness Kolanji who identified the house of the deceased on that night. In deed there are contradictions as to date and time stated by other witnesses. However it is clear that the deceased Ravi was picked-up by the police at least one or two days earlier to his death. The police version as to the nabbing of the accused at Sathipattu bus stop on 18.08.2010 at 3 P.M. may not be true.

Next comes the cause of death. The deceased was stated to have been tortured by the police at Nadu-Veerapattu P.S. The co-accused in Cr. No. 95/2010 of Nellikuppam P.S. are the eye witnesses to the torture and physical violence on the deceased. The relatives of the deceased stated that the deceased was hale and healthy. The postmortem report reveals that on the opening of contusion injuries (1) and (4), they have shown blood clots, muscle tears and intra-muscular bleeding. These injuries indicate that there might be physical violence on the deceased. However, it could not be concluded that these injuries are the reason for his death. The medical term "Myocardial infarction" in common parlance refer to "hear attack. The terms "Polytrauma" refers "multiple injuries". To my limited knowledge of medical jurisprudence, neither the "Myocardial infarction" nor the "Poly-trauma" will result in sudden death of a person of 35 years with health body, where no major injury on vital organs reported. But, the combination of acute myocardial infarction with poly-trauma might have caused the sudden death the charges are remote but cannot be ruled-out. The statement of the co-accused Kolanji and others who said that they saw the deceased Ravi fell unconscious after police beating could not be taken to mean that the death has happed. If that being true, the co-accused persons would have reported it to the Magistrate who remanded them in the next morning. None of the co-accused made any complaint to the Judicial Magistrate about police excesses.

It cannot be ruled out that the Squad might have taken the deceased Ravi to Saathipattu for some investigation related purpose on 18.08.2010 at 3 P.M. and the other events narrated by police would have possibly happened. The statement of two villagers Anthoniraj and Shanmugam who saw the deceased running and falling into the pond cannot be ignored. Therefore, police excesses alone cannot be the reason for the death of the said Ravi. The hear attack with multiple injuries sustained by the deceased when falling into the pond appears to be the real cause of the death. In the result, I conclude that the cause of death of the Ravi S/o. Kaliyan of Thandavankuppam was due to hear attack with multiple injuries sustained by him in unexpected fall from height."

5. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, submitted a report to the District Collector, who in turn, forwarded the same to the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Public, Law and Order, Secretariat, Chennai and also to the Senior Superintendent of Police, National Human Rights Commission.

6. The Secretary to the Government, on accepting the report of the Magistrate, under Letter No. 4341/L & O. E/2011-1 dated 13.10.2011, directed dropping of further action in the matter. The said letter of the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu reads as follows:-

"I am directed to refer to your letter second cited and to state that the Government have agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer i.e., Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti that the cause of death of K. Ravi, S/o. Kaliyan on 18.08.2010 was due to heart attack with multiple injuries sustained by him in unexpected fall from height from the bunds into a small pond and accordingly dropped further action in the matter."

7. In the above stated circumstances, the petitioner has come up with this original...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT