HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L., MEMBER. Thiru R.Ramasamy … Complainant -Vs- (1)Thiru A.Arumuga Nainar, the then SSI, Nalatinpudur Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (2)Thiru M.Murugan, the then Head Constable, Nalatinpudur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TAMIL NADU
‘Thiruvarangam’
No.143 P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai
(Greenways Road), Chennai-600 028.
Monday, the 8th day of December 2025
SHRC Case Nos.5317 of 2011
PRESENT :
HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L.,
MEMBER.
Thiru R.Ramasamy … Complainant
-Vs-
(1)Thiru A.Arumuga Nainar, the then SSI, Nalatinpudur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
(2)Thiru M.Murugan, the then Head Constable, Nalatinpudur Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Since retired from service)
… Respondents
ORDER
Gist of the complaints allegations is as follows:-
The Complainant is residing in Door No.3/666 Lakshmi Nagar, Nagalingapuram, Koduvai, Avinashipalayam, Tiruppur District. On 07.04.2011 the 1st Respondent asked the complainant to bring his son Sathishkumar to Avinashipalayam police station. Accordingly, the Complainant went to the police station along with his son and the 1st Respondent informed that his son was called for an enquiry on a complaint given by one Krishnamoorthi that his wife and child were kidnapped by his son and on the basis of that complaint a case in Nalatinpudur PS Cr.No.123/11 U/s 366 of IPC was registered against his son. Hence his son was sent by the Complainant for enquiry and on the same day at about 06.00 PM, his son was taken by the Respondents in a TATA Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.TN69-V-0022. At about 11.30 PM he received information from Kallikudi police station that his son met with an accident and directed him to come to Kallikudi police station. Hence he went to Kallikudi police station along with his relatives and then he went to the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar and there he was informed that his son was murdered by the defacto complainant Krishnamoorthi because of the negligent act of the Respondents police. On 09.04.2011, on the request of RDO, Aruppukottai, postmortem was conducted by the Doctors and on the same day the dead body was handed over to him. Only on the negligent act of the Respondents, his 18 years old son was murdered during the custody of the Respondents and hence he prayed for appropriate action against the Respondents.
2. The defence of the Respondents as could be gathered from the common counter statement filed by them is as follows:-
The Respondents denied all the allegations contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted hereunder. The 1st & 2nd Respondents were working in Nalatinpudur police station in Thoothukudi District as Special Sub-Inspector of Police and Head Constable in the year 2011. On 07.04.2011 at about 06.00 AM, one Krishnamoorthi S/o Srinivasan gave a complaint stating that the son of the Complainant namely Sathish has kidnapped his wife and son and on the basis of that complaint the 1st Respondent had registered a case in Nalatinpudur PS Cr.No.123/2011 U/s 366 of IPC against the said Sathish and the same was entrusted to the Inspector of Police Thiru S.Karunanithi for investigation at 06.30 AM. On 07.04.2011 at about 06.30 AM, as per the instruction of Inspector, the 1st & 2nd Respondents and the defacto complainant Krishnamoorthi and his relatives went to Avinashipalayam police station at 11.30 AM through a TATA Sumo car bearing registration No.TN69-V-0022 arranged by the defacto complainant Krishnamoorthi. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent contacted the Complainant through cell phone and as per his instruction, the Complainant along with his son, the wife of the defacto complainant namely Murugeswari and her son came to the police station and entrusted them to the 1st Respondent. During the enquiry, the said Murugeswari told that she was not willing to live with her husband and the said Sathish also was willing to live with the said Murugeswari. Therefore, as per the instruction of the Inspector of Police, Nalatinpudur, the 1st & 2nd Respondents taken the said Sathish, Murugeswari and her son into the TATA Sumo car and they were proceed to Nalatinpudur police station. When they were nearing Dindigul, the son of Murugeswari was crying for milk and hence the car was stopped and after purchasing milk, the car was going towards Kallikudi Village in Madurai District. At that time, the defacto complainant, who was sitting in the back seat of Sathish, abused him in filthy language and cut his neck by using knife and he sustained bleeding injury. Thereafter, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar at about 10.45 PM for treatment and the Doctor, who examined him, declared him dead. Then, the 1st Respondent went to Kallikudi police station along with the said Krishnamoorthi and handed over him to Kallikudi police and he lodged a complaint regarding with the murder of Sathish. On the basis of his complaint a case in Kallikudi PS Cr.No.57/2011 U/s 302 of IPC was registered and after the trial, the said Krishnamoorthi was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment as per the judgment dated 29.01.2018 passed by the learned Madurai 1st Additional Sessions Court. The Respondents are not responsible for the death of Sathish and only on the personal enmity he was murdered by the said Krishnamoorthi. The Respondents did their duty after attacked by the said Krishnamoorthi and they took the said Sathish without any delay to the Government Hospital and tried to save his life. They controlled the said Krishnamoorthi and picked the knife from him and they prevented him from the attack on his wife Murugeswari and they handed over the said Krishnamoorthi and his wife and the vehicle to the Kallaikudi police station and lodged a complaint. During the enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, the 1st & 2nd Respondents were suspended from service and later a punishment was given to both the Respondents as “Postponement of increment for three years which shall operate to postpone his future increment”. The Respondents are not responsible in any manner for the death of Sathish and they did not assault or torture the said Sathish. Hence, the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. 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?
4. Point No.1 :- This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Respondents that on 07.04.2011, the 1st Respondent asked the complainant to bring his son Sathishkumar to Avinashipalayam police station. Accordingly, the Complainant went to the police station along with son and the 1st Respondent informed that his son was called for an enquiry on a complaint given by one Krishnamoorthi that his wife and child were kidnapped by his son and on the basis of that complaint a case in Nalatinpudur PS Cr.No.123/11 U/s 366 of IPC was registered against his son. Hence his son was sent by the Complainant for enquiry and on the same day at about 06.00 PM, his son was taken by the Respondents in a TATA Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.TN69-V0022. At about 11.30 PM he received information from Kallukuzhi police station that his son met with an accident and directed him to come to Kallukuzhi police station. Hence he went to Kallukuzhi police station along with his relatives and then he went to the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar and there he was informed that his son was murdered by the defacto complainant Krishnamoorthi on the negligent act of the Respondents police. On 09.04.2011 on the request of RDO, Aruppukottai, postmortem was conducted by the Doctors and on the same day the dead body was handed over to him. Only on the negligent act of the Respondents, his 18 years old son was murdered during the custody of the Respondents and hence he prayed for appropriate action against the Respondents.
5. Per contra, the case of the Respondents is that On 07.04.2011 at about 06.00 AM, one Krishnamoorthi S/o Srinivasan gave a complaint stating that the son of the Complainant namely Sathish has kidnapped his wife and son and on the basis of that complaint the 1st Respondent had registered a case in Nalatinpudur PS Cr.No.123/2011 U/s 366 of IPC against the said Sathish and the same was entrusted to the Inspector of Police Thiru S.Karunanithi for investigation at 06.30 AM. On 07.04.2011 at about 06.30 AM, as per the instruction of Inspector, the 1st & 2nd Respondents and the defacto complainant Krishnamoorthi and his relatives went to Avinashipalayam police station at 11.30 AM through a TATA Sumo car bearing registration No.TN69-V-0022 arranged by the defacto complainant Krishnamoorthi. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent contacted the Complainant through cell phone and as per his instruction, the Complainant along with his son, the wife of the defacto complainant namely Murugeswari and her son came to the police station and entrusted them to the 1st Respondent. During the enquiry, the said Murugeswari told that she was not willing to live with her husband and the said Sathish also was willing to live with the said Murugeswari. Therefore, as per the instruction of the Inspector of Police, Nalatinpudur, the 1st & 2nd Respondents taken the said Sathish, Murugeswari and her son into the TATA Sumo car and they were proceed to Nalatinpudur police station. When they were nearing Dindigul, the son of Murugeswari was crying for milk and hence the car was stopped and after purchasing milk, the car was going towards Kallikudi Village in Madurai District. At that time, the defacto complainant, who was sitting in the back seat of Sathish, abused him in filthy language and cut his neck by using knife and he sustained bleeding injury. Thereafter, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar at about 10.45 PM for treatment and the Doctor, who examined him, declared him dead. Then, the 1st Respondent went to Kallikudi police station along with the said Krishnamoorthi and handed over him to Kallikudi police and he lodged a complaint regarding with the murder of Sathish. On the basis of his complaint a case in Kallikudi PS Cr.No.57/2011 U/s 302 of IPC was registered and after the trial, the said Krishnamoorthi was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment as per judgment dated 29.01.2018 passed by the learned Madurai 1st Additional Sessions Court. The Respondents are not responsible for the death of Sathish and only on the personal enmity he was murdered by the said Krishnamoorthi. The Respondents did their duty after attacked by the said Krishnamoorthi and they took the said Sathish without any delay to the Government Hospital and tried to save his life. They controlled the said Krishnamoorthi and picked the knife from him and they prevented him from the attack on her wife Murugeswari and they handed over the said Krishnamoorthi and his wife and the vehicle to the Kallaikudi police station and lodged a complaint. During the enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, the 1st & 2nd Respondents were suspended from service and later a punishment was given to both the Respondents as “Postponement of increment for three years which shall operate to postpone his future increment”. The Respondents were not responsible in any manner for the death of Sathish and they did not assault or torture the said Sathish. Hence, the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. To prove his case, the Complainant examined himself as PW1 and filed proof affidavit and he reiterated the averments contained in the complaint. PW1 also filed 6 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to P6.
7. Per contra, the 1st & 2nd Respondents examined themselves as RW1 & RW2 and they also filed proof affidavit and they reiterated the averments contained in their common counter statement. RW1 & RW2 also filed 5 documents and the same were marked as Exs.R1 & R5.
8. Therefore, it is the duty of this Commission to decide whether the Respondents had committed violation of human rights of the Complainant or not?
9. The Complainant had field a proof affidavit and examined as PW1. He had marked 4 documents as Exs.P1 to P4 and during the cross-examination of RW1 Exs.P5 & P6 were marked. PW1 in his proof affidavit reiterated the same averments made in his complaint. In his proof affidavit PW1 submits that the Respondents herein failed to follow the procedure laid in Section 149 of Cr.P.C. and the Police Standing Order 21. Though the Respondents knows that his son was likely to assault by Krishnamoorthi, they wantonly seated his son in first row and the said Krishnamoorthi in the second row of the jeep and because of the negligent act of the Respondents, his son was murdered by the said Krishnamoorthi. Hence the death of his son only on the negligent act of the Respondents and they had taken his son in a private vehicle arranged by the defacto complainant Krishnamoorthi and they had committed human rights violation against his son. The judgment passed in SC No.328/2015 on the file of learned I Additional Sessions and District Judge, Madurai is marked as Ex.P4.
10. During the cross-examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that he harbouring the wife of Krishnamoorthi and his two years child as false. PW1 categorically admitted that he brought the said Murugeswari and her child and his son Sathish to Avinashipalayam police station. Apart from that no useful information was gathered in favour of the Respondents during his cross-examination.
11. The 1st Respondent filed proof affidavit and examined himself as RW1. In his proof affidavit, he reiterated the same averments made in his counter statement and he filed three documents which were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. During the cross-examination RW1 admitted that he is the eye witness to the murder case of the son of the Complainant. RW1 also admitted that during the enquiry in Nalatinpudur PS Cr.No.123/2011 he came to know that Murugeswari W/o Krishnamoorthi was not kidnapped. Ex.R2 was shown to the RW1 and he accepted that Ex.R2 is the proceedings of DIG, Tirunelveli Range dated 27.02.2012 and in that order punishment was imposed on him. So, it is proved from the Ex.R2 that the 1st Respondent had acted in negligent and lethargic manner and on that reason only he was imposed punishment by his higher officials.
12. RW2 Thiru Murugan, who retired from service on 31.05.2023, has filed proof affidavit and reiterated the same averments made in his counter statement. RW2 marked two documents as Exs.R4 & R5. Ex.R4 is the departmental punishment imposed on him and Ex.R5 is the appeal against his punishment and the same was not entertained by his higher officials. During the cross-examination, RW2 admitted that only on their part of negligent, departmental punishment was imposed on them. Ex.R2 is the order of settlement of suspension period of 1st Respondent and the charge framed against him is that “Highly reprehensible conduct in having been very slack and lethargic while bringing the suspect accused Sathish and the complainant’s wife to the Nalatinpudur PS Cr.No.123/2011 on 07.04.2011 at 22.45 hours and thereby resulting in the murder of the suspect accused by the complainant Krishnamoorthi.” Hence a charge was framed against him U/R 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules 1955 and a punishment was awarded on him as “Reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years which shall operate to postpone his future increments.” Ex.R4 is the order on punishment roll in which it is stated as follows:-
“HC.1759 Murugan is awarded a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years which shall operate to postpone h is future increments by DIG/7/N on 11.12.11 for DSP/Kovilpatti v‹gt® »UZz_®¤Â kidé KUnf°tç fl¤j¥g£lJ r«ge¤khf 6.4.2011 bfhL¤j òfh® kDé‰F fhtš MŒths® nkš tiuÎ elto¡if vL¡f kDjhu® _y« bfhL¤jij kDit 7.4.2011 khiy 5.00 ÂU¥ó® médhÁ¥ghisa« fhtšãiya¤Âš KUnf°tçia fl¤Âa rÂZ érhuizæ‹bghU£L miH¤J tU«nghJ lhlh Rnkh fhçš c£fh®ªÂUªj »UZz_®¤Â rÂZ fG¤ij f¤Âahš mW¤J bfhiy brŒj fhtyç‹ K‹åiyæš bfhiy el¡f fhuzkhf ÏUªj F‰w«.”
So, it reveals from the above documents filed by the Respondents that regarding the murder of the Complainant’s son Sathishkumar, departmental enquiry was conducted against the Respondents and charges were framed against them and after the enquiry punishment were awarded on them for dereliction of their duty that during their custody the said Sathishkumar was murdered by the defacto complainant Krishnamoorthi. Therefore, the allegations against the Respondents made in the complaint by the Complainant are proved.
13. During the argument, the Complainant side argued that the Complainant’s son was murdered only on the negligent and lethargic attitude of the Respondents during their duty and he pleaded as per the order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in a case in S.Vijasankar Vs State of Tamil Nadu in W.P.No.9267/2017 compensation may be awarded to the Complainant. He further argued that as per the Government Order of Tamil Nadu Government that if any person died during the custody of the police Government shall pay compensation to them.
14. However, the Respondents side argued that already they were awarded punishment by the department as “Reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years which shall operate to postpone his future increments” and they pleaded that already they lost nearly Rs.12 Lakhs each for the reduction of their increments and they requested not to pass any orders against them for deduction of any compensation from them. Moreover, the 2nd Respondent was retired from service on 31.05.2023 and the 1st Respondent will be retired from service on 31.07.2026 and considering these aspects they pleaded to direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay the compensation to the victim as per the Government Order in G.O.(Ms.)No.116 Public (Law and Order-A) Department dated 14.02.2023 and they also filed that Government Order along with their written arguments.
15. It is the admitted case of the Respondents that they took the son of the Complainant Sathishkumar and the defacto complainant’s wife Murugeswari and her son on 07.04.2011 from Avinashipalayam police station to Nalatinpudur along with the defacto complainant Krishnamoorthi and they were travelled in a private vehicle arranged by the said Krishnamoorthi and the said Sathishkumar was murdered on the way to Nalatinpudur police station near Kallikudi Village. So, it is the clear proven case that only on the negligent and lethargic attitude of the Respondents, a young boy was murdered and the way the Respondents seated the deceased Sathishkumar and the assailant Krishnamoorthi is not acceptable one. Already in this case, the negligent and lethargic attitude of the Respondents, they were subjected to departmental punishment. But no compensation was awarded to the deceased family as per Government Order in G.O.(Ms.)No.116 Public (Law and Order-A) Department dated 14.02.2023. So, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Government shall pay compensation to the Complainant for the murder of his son as per the above Government Order for the negligent duty of the Respondents.
16. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments of both the parties, it reveals that on 07.04.2011, the 1st & 2nd Respondents taken the son of the Complainant Sathishkumar, Murugeswari, the wife of defacto complainant Krishnamoorthi and her son in a TATA Sumo car and they were proceed to Nalatinpudur police station and when they were nearing Dindigul, the son of Murugeswari was crying for milk and hence the car was stopped and after purchasing milk, the car was going towards Kallikudi Village in Madurai District and at that time, the defacto complainant Krishnamoorthi, who was sitting in the back seat of Sathishkumar, abused him in filthy language and cut his neck by using knife and he sustained bleeding injury and he was taken to the hospital and there he was declared as dead. So, this Commission is of the considered view that the murder was happened only on the negligent and lethargic attitude of the Respondents during their duty and the same was proved from the documents filed by the Respondents as Exs.R2 to R5 and the punishment were awarded by way of departmental action. Therefore, the action on the part of the Respondents amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant. But they were punished by way of departmental action and hence no order of departmental action against them again. As rightly pointed out by the Respondents, the Government shall give compensation to the victim when a death in police custody where direct torture could not be established (like negligence in giving treatment etc.). So, in this case also it is not the case of the Complainant that the Respondents assaulted and tortured his son Sathishkumar during the police custody and only allegation against the Respondents is that they had acted in negligent manner and the same was proved for which they were awarded punishment by way of departmental action. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Government shall pay compensation to the father of the deceased Sathishkumar for the murder of his son during the police custody as per G.O.(Ms.)No.116 Public (Law and Order-A) Department dated 14.02.2023. This Point is answered accordingly.
17. Point No.2 :- This Commission has already held that the Respondents had violated the human rights of the Complainant. It is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdiction, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the Complainant is entitled to receive compensation for the violation of human rights from the Government of Tamil Nadu and fixing of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant would be fair and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice.
18. It is essential to cite the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 610 in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal on the aspect of vicarious liability of the employer. The Court held as follows:-
“Thus, to sum up, it is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts.
The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, in addition to the traditional remedies and not it derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit”.
19. Hence this Commission holds that the Complainant is entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- payable by the Government of Tamil Nadu as per G.O.(Ms.)No.116 Public (Law and Order-A) Department dated 14.02.2023 for the violation of human rights of the Respondents, who are the employees of the Government of Tamil Nadu. This point is answered accordingly.
20. In the result, this Commission recommends as follows:-
The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the Complainant Thiru R.Ramasamy, No.3/666, Lakshmi Nagar, Nagalingapuram, Koduvai, Avinashipalayam, Tiruppur, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation for the death of his son Sathishkumar during the police custody.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Complainant Side Witnesses :
PW1 Thiru V.Ramasamy
Complainant Side Documents :
Ex.P1 08.04.2011 Copy of FIR No.57/2011 of Kallikudi Police Station.
Ex.P2 19.04.2011 Copy of Post-mortem Certificate.
Ex.P3 24.04.2011 Copy of death Certificate of Sathishkumar.
Ex.P4 29.01.2018 Copy of Judgment in S.C.No.328/15.
Ex.P5 13.07.2016 Copy of deposition of PW1 in S.C.No.328/15.
Ex.P6 13.07.2016 Copy of deposition of PW2 in S.C.No.328/15.
Respondents Side Witnesses :
RW1 Thiru A.Arumuga Nainar
RW2 Thiru M.Murugan
Respondents Side Documents :
Ex.R1 07.04.2011 Copy of FIR No.123/2011 of Nalatinpudur PS.
Ex.R2 27.02.2012 Copy of Proceedings of the DIG, Tirunelveli Range.
Ex.R3 31.10.2016 Copy of Endorsement of DGP, Tamil Nadu.
Ex.R4 23.12.2011 Copy of order on punishment roll.
Ex.R5 03.11.2016 Copy of Endorsement of DGP, Tamil Nadu.
Sd/-
MEMBER
To
The Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat Chennai – 600 009.
Copy to
(1)Thiru R.Ramasamy, No.3/666, Lakshmi Nagar, Nagalingapuram, Koduvai, Avinashipalayam, Tiruppur.
(2)Thiru A.Arumuga Nainar, SSI, Sayarpuram Police Station, Thoothukudi Dt.
(3)Thiru M.Murugan, S/o Thiru Muthiah, No.2/59 Middle Street, Nochikulam, Mela Maruthappapuram PO, V.K.Pudur Tk., Tenkasi Dt.-627860.
Mmk 08.12.2025
//BY ORDER//
Assistant Registrar
