STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TAMIL NADU ‘Thiruvarangam’ No.143 P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road), Chennai-600 028. Thursday, the 18th day of September 2025 SHRC Case No.4876 & 5664 of 2020 PRESENT : HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L., MEMBER.

STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TAMIL NADU
‘Thiruvarangam’
No.143 P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai
(Greenways Road), Chennai-600 028.

Thursday, the 18th day of September 2025

SHRC Case No.4876 & 5664 of 2020

PRESENT :
HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L.,
MEMBER.

Thiru A.Navaneethakrishnan … Complainant

-Vs-

(1) Thiru Chandrasekar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Veerakeralampudur Police Station, Tenkasi District.

(2) Thiru Kumar, Police Constable, Veerakeralampudur Police Station, Tenkasi District.
… Respondents

ORDER

Gist of the complaint allegations in SHRC Case No.4876/2020 is as follows:-
The Complainant sent this complaint on 20.06.2020 stating that he is residing at High School Street, Veerakeralampudur, Tenkasi District. His son Thiru Kumaresan was an Auto Driver. On 10.06.2020 at around 10.00 AM his son was suffering from shortness of breath and also blood vomiting. Hence the Complainant taken him to a private hospital namely Jayam Hospital in Surandai and admitted him for treatment. But his health was not improved even after receiving treatment in the hospital for three days. Hence the Complainant admitted his son at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital on 13.06.2020. During the examination the Doctor questioned the Complainant that what happened to him because his health was very worst condition. The Complainant’s son with fear and hesitation told the Doctor that there was a land dispute between him and one Thiru Senthil and he was called for enquiry by the police and he went to V.K.Pudur police station on 08.05.2020 at about 11.00 AM along with his father and during the enquiry the 1st Respondent abused him in filthy language and slapped him on his cheeks and when the Complainant’s son asked the 1st Respondent that why he assaulted him for which the 1st Respondent threatened him with dire consequences. While so on 09.05.2020 at about 03.00 PM when his son was waiting at V.K.Pudur bus stand auto stand, the 1st Respondent came there and instructed him to come to the police station for an enquiry on 10.05.2020 at 11.00AM and also snatched his cell phone. So, the Complainant’s son went to the police station on 10.05.2020 at 11.00 AM and the 1st Respondent took him to a separate cell and he assaulted him indiscriminately by lathi and the 2nd Respondent also assaulted him by hands. Then the 1st Respondent forced him to sit in squat position sitting and the 1st Respondent kicked on his chest and penis by booted legs. When he cried unable to bear the pain, the 1st Respondent was standing on his right thigh and the 2nd Respondent was standing on his left thigh and he felt severe pain in his thigh and penis. Then both the Respondents assaulted him on his back and the 1st Respondent assaulted on his back by lathi. Later he was sent out and threatened him that if he told anything to anyone he will foist false cases against him and he will assault his father also. Hence he did not say anything to his family members on fear. Then the Complainant’s son was admitted in ICU in the hospital with serious condition and the Doctors informed him that the lungs, kidney and internal organs of his son were damaged. The Complainant sent complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District against the Respondents. Therefore, the action on the part of the Respondents is not in accordance with law which amounts to violation of human rights of the son of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant prayed to take appropriate action against the Respondents.

2. Gist of the complaint allegations in SHRC Case No.5664/2020 is as follows:-
The Complainant sent another complaint which was received by this Commission on 20.07.2020. In this complaint he reiterated the same allegations of the earlier complaint in SHRC No.4876/2020. On 14.06.2020, V.K.Pudur police came to the hospital and enquired the Complainant’s son but no statement was recorded. On 19.06.2020 he sent representations to various authorities including the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Superintendent of Police, District Collector, etc. While so, his son died on 27.06.2020 at about 08.00 PM while he was in treatment in the hospital. The general public conducted dharna to take action against the police who are responsible for the death of his son. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police came there and compromised the agitating people and later a case was registered in Cr.No.216/2020 U/s 174(3) of Cr.P.C. at V.K.Pudur police station. Thereafter, they buried their son. Therefore, due to the brutal attack by the Respondents, his son died in the hospital and the Respondents had violated the human rights of the Complainant and necessary action may be taken against them.

3. The defence of the Respondents as could be gathered from the common counter statement filed by them is as follows:-
All the averments in the petition except those that are herein after admitted or otherwise dealt with which shall be deemed to have been denied. The averments stated in paragraph 1 of the petition are not quite correct. It is not correct to state that on 10.06.2020 at 10:00 am the petitioner’s son was admitted at Surandai Jayam Hospital, but before that on 06.06.2020 the petitioner’s son was admitted in Govt. Hospital at V.K.Pudur as Non-MLC and treated as outpatient for Blood stained vomiting and tiredness. At that time, the petitioner’s son was under the influence of alcoholic and the treatment was given to him and the medical officer referred him for further treatment in Govt. Hospital, Tenkasi, and on 09.06.2020 the petitioner’s son treated in the same hospital as outpatient and taken treatment for cough, sore throat and fever and he was advised to take test for Covid-19. It is clearly shows that the petitioner’s son was addicted in alcohol. Further it is not correct to state that the police of V.K.Pudur Police Station enquired the matter on 08.05.2020 at about 11.00 am and the Sub Inspector Mr.Chandrasekar (1 respondent) uttered unparliamentary words and slapped the petitioner’s son on his cheek Intermittently and criminally intimidated the petitioner’s son with dire consequences. The real fact is that on 04.05.2020 while the 1st respondent was on his duty in V.K.Pudur Police Station, he received a complaint from one Senthilkumar, S/o. Subbiah Muthaliyar of V.K.Pudur against petitioner’s son for stealing coconuts illegally from the garden of the said Senthilkumar. On the same date the 1st respondent enquired the petitioner’s son, the petitioner also present and the petitioner admitted and tendered apology for the acts of his son, thus, the complaint was closed as per CSR.No.164/2020 dated 04.05.2020. The allegations stated in paragraph 2 of the petition are utter false and baseless. No such incident was happened as alleged in the petition. Instead, on 05.05.2020 due to covid-19 pandemic while 144 Order was in force, the petitioner’s son violated the order for a case in Crime No.147/2020 was registered for the offence under section 270 of IPC against the petitioner’s son and he was arrested and released on bail. The police laid the final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam. Further on 14.05.2020 when the respondents and another Mr.T.Kannan Constable was on patrolling, the petitioner’s son used obscene words in the public place and caused breach of public peace so that, the police arrested the petitioner’s son and the case was registered against him as Crime No.162/2020 for an offence under section 291of I.P.C. in V.K.Pudur Police Station and the Final Report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam. The averments in paragraph 3 of the petition are denied as false. When the petitioner’s son was admitted in the Tirunelveli High Ground Government Medical College Hospital on 12.06.2020 at 11:45 p.m. the Medical Officer Dr.Kohilalakshmi was examined the petitioner’s son and given first aid treatment as non-MLC and admitted him in (IMCU) care. While Dr.Kohilalakshmi investigated the petitioner’s son, he was in good condition and further he never stated about that he was assaulted by anybody and no injury was found on the petitioner’s son. Further on 13.06.2020 while the Medical Officer
Dr.Premkumar examined the petitioner’s son at that time he was unable to talk. So the medical officer enquired the petitioner, he stated that 3 weeks ago his son was assaulted by two persons, based upon the statement given by the petitioner only the petitioner’s son was admitted as MLC (Medical Legal Case), after getting intimation from the Hospital, the V.K.Pudur Police recorded the statement of the petitioner’s son, but the petitioner’s son refused to subscribe his signature and did not turn up. Based upon the statement of the petitioner’s son, the V.K.Pudur police 1st respondent had registered CSR.No.231/2020 and the Circle Inspector conducted investigation and the case was closed. There was no external injury found on the body of the petitioner’s son as per medical records. It is utter false to state that the complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, by the petitioner as stated in the petition. The respondents are law abiding citizens. They have done their duty with utmost care and attention they are in no way connected with the incident narrated in the petition. The petition is pregnant with blatant lies false and untenable allegations with a view to protract the proceedings. In the Accident Register (AR) there is no external injuries were found as stated in the petition. The petitioner with sinister motive foisted a false case against the respondents. On account of the earlier registration of the cases against the petitioner’s son, in order to wreak vengeance, the petitioner with bad intention presented a complaint to the Commission with a sole object of harassing the respondents and running from pillar to post. In fact, the petitioner’s son is an alcoholic and he has taken treatment as outpatient on 10.06.2020, 11.06.2020 and 12.06.2020 in Jayam Hospital, Surandai, as non-MLC (Non-Medical Legal Case) for alcoholism. No prima facie case is made out against the respondents. The respondents submits that the petitioner’s son is a habitually addicted to alcoholic and regularly created nuisance to the public for that the respondents predecessors registered an FIR against the petitioner’s son from the year 2017 to 2020. On 17.01.2017 the V.K.Pudur Sub Inspector registered the FIR against the petitioner’s son in Crime No. 7/2017 for an offence under Section 75 of TNCP Act and the Sub Inspector of Police, V.K.Pudur, has filed final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam and it was numbered as STC 190/2017, and in that case he was convicted. Further on 15.01.2018 the V.K.Pudur police had registered an FIR in Crime No.19/2018 for an offence U/S 151 Cr.P.C. and the case was action dropped by the Sl of Police, V.K.Pudur. On 24.04.2019 the V.K.Pudur police has registered a case in Crime No. 89/2019 for an offence U/S 291 of IPC and the case was charge sheeted and numbered as STC 519/2019 in that case also the judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, convicted him on 14.12.2019. Thus it was clearly proved that the petitioner’s son was a not only the criminal but also a habitual offender causing nuisance to the public. The respondents submit that they are the man of good reputation in their working places, they discharged their duties honesty and prominently to the public. The act of the petitioner spreading false imputations to rumor against the respondents and caused loss of good name in the department so that he could not concentrate their work with utmost care and discharge their duty properly which caused great mental agony, hardship, pain and trauma to the respondents which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, the Respondents have no way connected to the cause of death of the son of the Complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The points for consideration before this Commission are as follows:
(1) Whether the Respondents had violated the human rights of the
Complainant?

(2) What reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

5. Point No.1 :- This is a case of custodial death. This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Respondents that there was a land dispute between hi and one Thiru Senthil and his son was called for enquiry and he went to V.K.Pudur police station on 08.05.2020 at about 11.00 AM along with his father and during the enquiry the 1st Respondent abused him in filthy language and slapped him on his cheeks and when the Complainant’s son asked the 1st Respondent that why he assaulted him for which the 1st Respondent threatened him with dire consequences. While so on 09.05.2020 at about 03.00 PM when his son was waiting at V.K.Pudur bus stand auto stand, 1st Respondent came there and instructed him to come to the police station for an enquiry on 10.05.2020 at 11.00AM and also snatched his cell phone. So, the Complainant’s son went to the police station on 10.05.2020 at 11.00 AM and the 1st Respondent took him to a separate cell and he assaulted him indiscriminately by lathi and the 2nd Respondent also assaulted him by hands. Then the 1st Respondent forced him to sit in squat position sitting and the 1st Respondent kicked on his chest and penis by booted legs. When he cried unable to bear the pain, the 1st Respondent was standing on his right thigh and the 2nd Respondent was standing on his left thigh and he felt severe pain in his thigh and penis. Then both the Respondents assaulted him on his back and the 1st Respondent assaulted on his back by lathi. Later he was sent out and threatened him that if he told anything to anyone he will foist false cases against him and he will assault his father also. Hence he did not say anything to his family members on fear. Then the Complainant’s son was admitted in ICU in the hospital with serious condition and the Doctors informed him that the lungs, kidney and the internal organs of his son were damaged. The Complainant sent complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District against the Respondents. While so, his son died on 27.06.2020 at about 08.00 PM while he was in treatment in the hospital. The general public conducted dharna to take action against the police who are responsible for the death of his son. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police came there and compromised the agitating people and later a case was registered in Cr.No.216/2020 U/s 174(3) of Cr.P.C. at V.K.Pudur police station. Thereafter, they buried their son. Therefore, due to the brutal attack by the Respondents, his son died in the hospital and the Respondents had violated the human rights of the Complainant and necessary action may be taken against them.

6. Per contra, the police have a different story and denied the allegations of the Complainant in their counter statement in detailed manner. The case of the Respondents is that the respondents are law abiding citizens. They have done their duty with utmost care and attention they are in no way connected with the incident narrated in the petition. The petition is pregnant with blatant lies false and untenable allegations with a view to protract the proceedings. In the Accident Register (AR) there is no external injuries were found as stated in the petition. The petitioner with sinister motive foisted a false case against the respondents. On account of the earlier registration of the cases against the petitioner’s son, in order to wreak vengeance, the petitioner with bad intention presented a complaint to the commission with a sole object of harassing the respondents and running from pillar to post. In fact, the petitioner’s son is an alcoholic and he has taken treatment as outpatient on 10.06.2020, 11.06.2020 and 12.06.2020 in Jayam Hospital, Surandai, as non-MLC (Non-Medical Legal Case) for alcoholism. No prima facie case is made out against the respondents. The respondent submits that the petitioner’s son is a habitually addicted to alcoholic and regularly created nuisance to the public for that the respondents predecessors registered an FIR against the petitioner’s son from the year 2017 to 2020. On 17.01.2017 the V.K.Pudur Sub Inspector registered the FIR against the petitioner’s son in Crime No. 7/2017 for an offence under Section 75 of TNCP Act the Sub Inspector of Police. V.K.Pudur, has filed final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam and it was numbered as STC 190/2017, and in that case he was convicted. Further on 15.01.2018 the V.K.Pudur police had registered an FIR in Crime No.19/2018 for an offence U/S 151 Cr.P.C. and the case was action dropped by the Sl of Police, V.K.Pudur. On 24.04.2019 the V.K.Pudur police has registered a case in Crime No. 89/2019 for an offence U/S 291 of IPC and the case was charge sheeted and numbered as STC 519/2019 in that case also the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, convicted him on 14.12.2019. Thus it was clearly proved that the petitioner’s son was a not only the criminal but also a habitual offender causing nuisance to the public. Therefore, the Respondents have no way connected to the cause of death of the son of the Complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7. In order to prove his case, the Complainant examined himself as PW1 and filed proof affidavit and reiterated the averments contained in the complaint. He also examined his wife Tmt.Vinayagam as PW2 and she also filed proof affidavit to support the case of the Complainant. The Complainant also examined Dr.Jenu Santhosh and Dr.Sanjeev Pandian, who gave treatment to the Complainant’s son while he was admitted as inpatient in Govt. Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, as PW3 & PW4 respectively. PW1 & PW2 marked Exs.P1 to P12.

8. Per contra, the Respondents examined themselves as RW1 & RW2 and they had filed proof affidavits and reiterated the averments contained in the common counter statement. RW1 field 15 documents and the same were marked as Exs.R1 to R15. The Respondents also examined one Dr.Jilsha and Dr.Angelin Selvarani as RW3 & RW4 and they had marked two documents as Exs.R16 & R17 respectively.

9. Therefore, it is the duty of this Commission to decide whether the allegations of the Complainant against the Respondents are proved which amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant or not.

10. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and reiterated the same averments made in his complaint and he also marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. Apart from his averments in the complaint, PW1 submit in his proof affidavit that after the death of his son on 27.06.2020 FIR was registered in V.K.Pudur PS Cr.No.216/2020 U/s 174 of Cr.P.C on the basis of his complaint. Though he mentioned the names of the Respondents and their overt acts in the complaint, the police had registered the case as suspicious death. Dr.Sanjeev Pandian, who treated the deceased in Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, opined in Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. statement that Kumaresan died due to Diffuse Myofacial Emphysematous Changes. Dr.Jenu Santhosh also opined that when examining the deceased Subcutaneous Emphysema was found on the neck of the deceased. Hence he prayed for appropriate action against the Respondents. During the cross-examination PW1 denied that his son Kumaresan did not state in the Government Medical College Hospital that he was attacked by the policemen. PW1 deposed that the alleged attack on his son was informed by his son to him and then only he came to know the fact. An interesting stand was taken by the Respondents during the cross-examination of PW1 that both the Respondents were not available in the police station on 10.05.2020, when the Complainant’s son was allegedly assaulted by the Respondents and they were on other duty. But the same stand was not taken by the Respondents in their common counter statement. Another suggestion put forth by the Respondents’ counsel that the son of PW1 died due to the injuries sustained by him while he was in drunk and drive and the same was denied by the Complainant. Even though PW1 was cross-examined by the Respondents in lengthy manner no useful information was gathered in favour of the Respondents.

11. The wife of PW1 Tmt.Vinayagam filed a proof affidavit and examined as PW2. PW2 corroborated the evidence of PW1. PW2 submits that she was examined as a witness by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam and the copy of her statement was marked as Ex.P12. PW2 denied all the suggestions put forth by the Respondents’ counsel and she has stated that her son was taken to V.K.Pudur Government Hospital by her husband and not by her. But she categorically stated that while her son was taken to the police station he accompanied her husband. PW2 during the cross-examination submit that while her son gave statement before the Doctor she was accompanied her son in the hospital. Even though PW2 was cross-examined by the Respondents in lengthy manner no useful information was gathered in favour of the Respondents.

12. Dr.Jenu Santhosh examined as PW3 on a summons issued by this Commission. PW3 deposed that when he was working as Assistant Professor in the Government Medical College Hospital on 12.06.2020 at 11.30 PM, a patient namely Kumaresan, aged about 25 years brought by his father Thiru Navaneethakrishnan and told that he was suffering with breathing problem and fever and also jaundice for the past one week. When he examined him he found that there was a breathing problem to the patient and the symptoms of jaundice and the oxygen level was found 70%. When he examined the patient Kumaresan on 13.06.2020 he reported that he was assaulted by some persons 14 days ago and hence he recommended the patient to treat as MLC case. He did all the medical tests to him and also referred him to Gastroenterologist, Cardiologist, etc. for further management. When he examined the son of the Complainant he found contusion on his left thigh and back and Subcutaneous Emphysema was found on his neck. Later the patient was transferred to another department. During the cross-examination PW3 asserted that he recorded what the patient was told to him and there were chances to the son of the Complainant to die due to the injury sustained on his neck. Therefore, the evidence of the PW3 is enough to decide that the Complainant’s was attacked in brutal manner and due to the attack made on him, his internal organs were damaged and because of the damage of internal organs he died subsequently

13. Dr.Sanjeev Pandian was examined as PW4 and he deposed in the chief examination that he was working as Professor & HOD in Cardiology Department in Govt. Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. He examined the patient Kumaresan on 14.06.2020 and found that various internal organs of the patient were not functioning properly and kidney and the liver were not functioning properly and hence treatment was given to him by the Doctors of the respective departments and ventilator was also provided to him. But he was not affected by corona. He was treated in ICU as inpatient for 14 days and he died on 27.06.2020 at about 08.30 PM. The cause of death of the patient is due to the assault and also failure of the internal organs. During the cross-examination PW4 replied that he found jaundice during the admission and also he died due to Myofacial Emphysematous changes. PW4 denied the suggestion that Kumaresan could not died due to the attack. So, PW3 & PW4 corroborated oral evidence of PW1 & PW2 that their son was attacked by the Respondents in brutal manner and they are responsible for the death of their son.

14. The 1st Respondent filed proof affidavit and examined as RW1. In his proof affidavit he reiterated the same averments made in the common counter statement. RW1 filed 15 documents and the same were marked as Exs.R1 to R15. In the proof affidavit RW1 submit that the son of the Complainant died on 27.06.2020 and a criminal case was registered in Cr.No.216/2020 U/s 174 of Cr.P.C. and the investigation was conducted by the DSP, District Crime Branch and filed final report before the court and closed the case as mistake of fact and the same was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam. Because of the cases registered against the son of the Complainant on 05.05.2020 and 14.05.2020 for causing nuisance to the public, to wreck vengeance for that the Complainant filed this case against the Respondents with false allegations. The Respondents had not committed any human rights violation against the son of the Complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

15. During the cross-examination RW1 admitted that initially the son of the Complainant was admitted as Non-MLC patient and on the basis of the statement given by him before the Doctors that he was assaulted some persons, he was treated as MLC patient. RW1 admitted that after the death of his son, the Complainant gave complaint before V.K.Pudur police station by mentioning the names of the Respondents No.1 & 2. But the case was registered as suspicious death. RW1 admitted that Exs.R1 to R4 are the documents of V.K.Pudur police station where he worked as Sub-Inspector of Police. The counsel for the Complainant, during the cross-examination, put a question to RW1 that why he had registered the FIR as suspicious death though his name and the name of the 2nd Respondent were mentioned in the complaint for which he replied that he had not registered the case. When the suggestion put forth by the Complainant’s counsel that RW1 & RW2 attacked the son of the Complainant and because of that attack he died. But it was denied by RW1.

16. The admission of the RW1 and the suggestions put forth by the Complainant’s counsel during the cross-examination of RW1 and the reply of RW1 is as follows:-
“vdJ ã%gz th¡F_y« g¤Â 5š kDjhu® Kjèš ÂUbešntè muR kU¤Jtkidæš cŸnehahëahf mDk¡f¥g£lnghJ mt® kU¤Jt F‰w« rhuhj nehahëahf mDk¡f¥g£oUªjh®. Ëd® mt® Ra ãidéšyhkš ÏUªj fhuz¤jhš kDjhuçl« étu« nf£lnghJ jdJ kf‹ 3 tuh§fS¡F K‹ò 2 eg®fshš jh¡f¥g£lh® v‹W T¿aj‹go mtU¡F r£l« rh®ªj kU¤Jt« v‹w mo¥gilæš Á»¢ir tH§f¥g£LŸsjhf vd¡F v¥go bjçÍ« v‹whš kU¤Jt®fŸ më¤j th¡F_y¤Âš m›thW cŸsJ. . . . . .
kDjhuUila kf‹ Fknur‹ 27.06.2020 m‹W Ïwªj ÃwF kDjhu® é.nf.òJh® fhtš ãiya¤Âš më¤j òfhçš jdJ kfdJ kuz¤Â‰F fhuz« vd vdJ bgaiuÍ«, 2« v®kDjhuuhd Fkh® bgaiuÍ« F¿¥Ã£L më¤ÂUªjh® v‹whš rçjh‹. kDjhu® vdJ bgaiu F¿¥Ã£L òfh® më¤ÂUªJ« mjid rªnjf kuz« vd Kjš jftš m¿¡if gÂÎ brŒa¥g£lJ v‹whš mij eh‹ gÂÎ brŒaéšiy. . . . . . . .
eh§fŸ fhtšãiya¤Âš kdjhuç‹ kfid it¤ÂUªJ äf¡ bfh^ukhf mo¤J fha¥gL¤Âa fhuz¤jhšjh‹ mtuJ clèš cŸSW¥òfŸ gh¡f¥g£L mtuJ kuz¤Â‰F fhuzkhf ÏUªnjh« v‹whš rçašy. . . . . .
kDjhuç‹ kf‹ ÛJ v§fŸ fhtš ãiya¤Âš nghl¥g£oUªj tH¡FfŸ m®¥g tH¡FfŸ v‹wh® rçjh‹. v‹ål« fh£l¥gL« vkrhM.15š 9 fha§fŸ F¿¥Ãl¥g£LŸsd v‹whš rçjh‹. Mdhš mitfŸ mid¤J« giHa M¿a fha§fŸ MF«. mªj fha§fŸ mid¤J« ehD« 2« v®kDjhuU« 10.05.2020 m‹W fhtš ãiya¤Âš it¤J mo¤j fha§fŸjh‹ v‹whš rçašy. . . .
ehD« 2« v®kDjhuU« nr®ªJ jh¡»a fhuz¤jhšjh‹ kDjhuç‹ kfD¡F c£fha§fŸ V‰g£L mjdhš kuz« V‰g£lJ v‹whš rçašy . . . . . . eh§fŸ fhtš Jiwæd® v‹gjhY«, fhtš ãiya¤Âš jh¡f¥g£L xU eg® ÏwªÂU¥gij v§fsJ ca® mYty®fŸ kDjhuç‹ kfdJ kuz« F¿¤J Kiwahd òy‹ érhuiz brŒahkš v§fis fh¥gh‰W« neh¡»š brašg£lh®fŸ vdwhš rçašy.”
Even though the Complainant gave a complaint before V.K.Pudur police station by mentioning the names of the Respondents as accused and also mentioned their overt acts in the complaint, the V.K.Pudur police had registered a case as suspicious death in order to protect the Respondents from the offence committed by them.

17. The 2nd Respondent filed proof affidavit and examined as RW2. In that proof affidavit he has stated the same averments made in the common counter statement. Moreover, he corroborated the evidence of RW1. During the cross-examination RW2 denied the suggestion that the medical records were made by the influence of the Respondents as false. RW2 also denied the suggestion that he and RW1 attacked the son of the Complainant and because of the injuries caused by them he died as false. The admission of the RW2 and the suggestions put forth by the Complainant’s counsel during the cross-examination of RW2 and the reply of RW2 is as follows:-
“v§fŸ fhtš ãiya¤Âš Rkh® 20¡F« nk‰g£lfhty®fŸ k‰W« 2 cjé MŒths®fŸ k‰W« xU t£l MŒths« ÏU¡F« ãiyæš ÏwªJ nghd Fknur‹ ÛJ mtiu bfhLikahf¤ jh¡» kuz« V‰gL¤ÂaJ bjhl®ghf v®kDjhu®fsh»a v§fŸ ÏUt® ÛJ k£L« nt©Lbk‹nw F‰w« Rk¤j nt©oa KfhªÂu« kDjhuU¡F Ïšiy v‹whš rçašy. vdJ ã%gz th¡F_y¤Âš g¤Â 5š T¿ÍŸs étu§fS¡F Kuzhf g¤Â 6š ÏwªJ nghd Fknur‹ kU¤Jt Á»¢ir bg‰¿U¥gJ F¿¤J T¿ÍŸns‹ v‹whš eh‹ kU¤Jt®fis¡ nf£L bjçªJ bfh©nl‹. eh‹ v§fsJ fhtšJiw mÂfhu¤ij¥ ga‹gL¤Â muR kU¤Jtkid k‰W« jåah® kU¤Jtkidæš jfhãiy t‰òW¤jiy cUth¡» ÏwªJnghd Fknuråš kU¤Jt m¿¡ifæš v§fsJ gÂÎfis cUth¡»¡ bfh©nlh« v‹whš rçašy.
eh‹ kDjhu® kf‹ Fknurid 1« v®kDjhuUl‹ nr®ªJ é.nf.òJh® fhtš ãiya¤Âš it¤J bfh^ukhf¤ jh¡» mtU¡F clš v§F« gšntW Ïl§fëš btë k‰W« cŸfha§fis V‰gL¤Â mjid kiw¡f Fknur‹ Kjèš F‰w tH¡»šyhj kU¤Jt Á»¢ir bg‰wh® v‹W« Ëd® mJ kU¤Jt« r«gªjj¥g£l F‰w tH¡fhf kh‰¿ vGj¥g£lJ v‹W« F¿¥Ã£LŸns‹ v‹whš rçašy. nkY« eh§fŸ jh¡»aj‹ éisthf kDjhuç‹ kf‹ Fknur‹ 27.06.2020 m‹W kuzkilªjh® v‹whY« mjid kiw¡F« bghU£Ljh‹ vdJ ã%gz th¡FKy« g¤Â 6š gy c©ika‰w r§fÂfis¡ F¿¥Ã£LŸns‹ v‹whš rçašy.
v‹ål« fh£l¥gL« krhM2 Kjš jftš m¿¡if efèš vdJ bga® k‰W« 1« v®kdjhu® bga® k£Lnk F¿¥Ãl¥g£LŸsJ v‹whš rçjh‹. mš eh§fŸ ÏUtU« Fknur‹ v‹gtiu mt® clš KGtJ« mo¤J J‹òW¤Âajhf F¿¥Ãl¥g£LŸsJ v‹whš mJ c©ikašy. Ëd® érhuizæ‹ ÃwF mªj Kjš jftš m¿¡if bghU©ik jtW vd Ko¤J it¡f¥g£lJ. . . . . . . mªj Kjš jftš m¿¡ifæš fhty®fsh»a v§fŸ bga® F¿¥Ãl¥g£oUªjjhš v§fŸ nt©Lnfhë‹go c§fsJ cauÂfhçfŸ Kiwa‰w érhuiz brŒJ mªj tH¡if bghU©ik jtW vd Ko¤J it¤jh®fŸ v‹whš rçašy. . . . . . . . .
ehD« 1« v®kDjhuU« kDjhuç‹ kf‹ Fknurid é.nf.òu« fhtš ãiya¤Âš it¤J bfh^ukhf¤ jh¡» mtuJ clš KGtJ« btë k‰W« c£fha§fis V‰gL¤Â mtuJ kuz¤Â‰F fhuzkhdt®fŸ v‹whY«, mtiu¤ jh¡» bfhLik¥gL¤Âajhš jh‹ mt® kuzkilªjh® v‹whY«, eh§fŸ kåj cçik Ûwèš