HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L., MEMBER. Tmt.E.Chandra
STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TAMIL NADU
‘Thiruvarangam’ No.143 P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road), Chennai-600 028.
Wednesday, the 21st day of May 2025
SHRC Case No.691 of 2020
PRESENT :
HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L., MEMBER.
Tmt.E.Chandra … Complainant
-Vs-
(1) Thiru N.Maharajan, the then Gr.I PC, Tirunelveli Town Police Station, Tirunelveli.
(2) Thiru R.Vimlan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Town Police Station, Tirunelveli.
… Respondents
ORDER
Gist of the complaint allegations is as follows:-
The Complainant is residing in door No.37, Ennayiram Pillai Koil West
Street in Tirunelveli Town and she is running a grocery shop before her house. On 10.12.2019 the Respondents trespassed into her house and asked about her son Thiru Petchivel and searched her house and her son was not there. Therefore, they got angry and threw all the things from her shop and caused a loss of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant. Her 2nd son Thiru Bharathiraja sent a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City and the RDO regarding this incident. But no action was taken against his complaint. Since her son lodged complaint against the Respondents, they got angry and again came to her house on 15.01.2020 at about 09.00 PM and trespassed into her house and dragged her son Thiru Petchivel to the street and assaulted him by legs and lathi and took him to the police station in a Van. Thereafter, the
Complainant went to the police station and saw her son was assaulted by the Respondents and caused fracture on his leg and the Respondents threatened the Complainant and sent her out. Her son Thiru Petchivel was detained illegally for two days and later he was admitted in Tirunelveli Government Hospital. Her 2nd son Thiru Bharathiraja went to the hospital on 17.01.2020 at 11.00 AM and saw that Thiru Petchivel was admitted as inpatient and a bandage was put in his right leg. But he was not permitted to see Thiru Petchivel. Later she came to know that the Respondents filed a false case against her son on the basis of a complaint given by one Thiru Ayyappan and they created false documents and remanded her son to the judicial custody. Therefore, the action on the part of the Respondents amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant and hence suitable action may be taken against the Respondents.
2. After receipt of this complaint, the same was forwarded to the
Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City to enquire into the matter and send a report to this Commission. This said Officer also sent a report to his Commission sating that the enquiry officer examined the 2nd Respondent only and it reveals from the enquiry that on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Thiru Ayyappan a case in Tirunelveli Town PS No.19/2020 U/s 341,294(b), 307,506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act was registered and the accused Petchivel was searched by the police and an information from the reliable sources that he was hiding at Kurukkuthurai railway gate and the police went there and when Petchivel saw the policemen he jumped into the railway track and fell down in a ditch and sustained injuries on his leg and in his confession statement he admitted that he sustained injury because of the fall in a ditch. Hence the said Officer requested to close this complaint and no further action is needed in this complaint. But the report called for by this
Commission on a human rights violation complaint from the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli. But unfortunately, the enquiry officer enquired the opposite party Respondent police only and he did not enquire the Complainant and other aspects and he filed one sided report. Hence this Commission had not accepted the report and ordered to issue summons to the Respondents police Thiru Maharajan and Thiru Vimalan, both were attached to Tirunelveli Town PS and they were arrayed as Respondents No.1 & 2 respectively in this case.
3. The defence of the Respondents as could be gathered from the common counter filed by them is as follows:-
The Respondents in their counter statements denied all the allegations stated in the complaint against them as false. The Respondents had stated that they were worked in Tirunelveli Town Police Station and on a complaint given by one Thiru Raja S/o Anthoni a case was registered against the son of the Complainant Thiru Petchivel in Cr.No.19/2020. On the information received by them they went for secure the accused person Petchivel and in order to escape from the arrest, he jumped into a ditch and sustained injury in his right leg and after giving first aid he was remanded to judicial custody. Apart from that no such human rights violation committed by the Respondents as alleged in the complaint. The son of the Complainant admitted how he got injury in the confession statement. While he was produced before the learned Magistrate for remand, he has stated that he was not tortured by the police and when he tried to escape from the arrest he jumped into the ditch and sustained injury. The Respondents followed the rules and regulations ensured in the Act. Moreover, the Complainant’s son Thiru Petchivel has lot of criminal cases. The Complainant’s son was arrested on 24.06.2023 in Tirunelveli Town PS Cr.No.252/2023 and he is in the prison till date. So, in order to avoid further arrest and to escape from all the cases, the Complainant willfully filed this false complaint against the Respondents. The Respondents had acted in accordance with law and had not violated the human rights 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 complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Respondents that on 10.12.2019 the Respondents trespassed into her house and asked about her son Thiru Petchivel and searched her house and her son was not there. Therefore, they got angry and threw all the things from her shop and caused a loss of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant. Her 2nd son Thiru Bharathiraja sent a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City and the RDO regarding this incident. But no action was taken against his complaint. Since her son lodged complaint against the Respondents, they got angry and again came to her house on 15.01.2020 at about 09.00 PM and trespassed into her house and dragged her son Thiru Petchivel to the street and assaulted him by legs and lathi and took him to the police station in a Van. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the police station and saw her son was assaulted by the Respondents and caused fracture on his leg and the
Respondents threatened the Complainant and sent her out. Her son Thiru Petchivel was detained illegally for two days and later he was admitted in Tirunelveli Government Hospital. Her 2nd son Thiru Bharathiraja went to the hospital on 17.01.2020 at 11.00 AM and saw that Thiru Petchivel was admitted as inpatient and a bandage was put in his right leg. But he was not permitted to see Thiru Petchivel. Later she came to know that the Respondents filed a false case against her son on the basis of a complaint given by one Thiru Ayyappan and they created false documents and remanded her son to the judicial custody. Therefore, the action on the part of the Respondents amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant and hence suitable action may be taken against the Respondents.
6. Per contra, the case of the Respondents is that on the basis of the complaint given by one Thiru Raja S/o Anthoni, a case was registered against the son of the Complainant Thiru Petchivel in Cr.No.19/2020. On the information received by them they went for secure the accused person Petchivel and in order to escape from the arrest, he jumped into a ditch and sustained injury in his right leg and after giving first aid he was remanded to judicial custody. Apart from that no such human rights violation committed by the Respondents as alleged in the complaint. The son of the Complainant admitted how he got injury in the confession statement. While he was produced before the learned Magistrate for remand, he has stated that he was not tortured by the police and when he tried to escape from the arrest he jumped into the ditch and sustained injury. The Respondents followed the rules and regulations ensured in the Act. Moreover, the Complainant’s son Thiru Petchivel has lot of criminal cases. The Complainant’s son was arrested on 24.06.2023 in Tirunelveli Town PS Cr.No.252/2023 and he is in the prison till date. So, in order to avoid further arrest and to escape from all the cases, the Complainant willfully filed this false complaint against the Respondents. The Respondents had acted in accordance with law and had not violated the human rights of the Complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. In order to prove her case, the Complainant examined herself as PW1 and filed proof affidavit and reiterated the averments contained in the complaint. She also examined her son Thiru Petchivel as PW2 and he also filed proof affidavit and supported the case of the Complainant. PW1 marked Ex.P1 medical documents pertaining to her son Thiru Petchivel and Ex.P2 remand report was marked through RW1 during his cross-examination.
8. Per contra, the 2nd Respondent examined himself as RW1 and the 1st Respondent examined himself as RW2 and they filed proof affidavits and reiterated the averments contained in the common counter statement. RW1 field 20 documents and the same were marked as Exs.R1 to R20.
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 examined as PW1. She filed two documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 & P2. Ex.P1 is the medical records and the Ex.P2 is the remand report marked through RW1 during his cross-examination. In her proof affidavit PW1 reiterated the same averments made in her complaint. During the cross-examination PW1 admitted that there was nearly 20 cases are pending against her son. During the cross-examination PW1 denied most of the suggestion put forth by the Respondents’ counsel. In a specific question she replied that she knows the injuries on the body of her son when he told her in the hospital. Except this suggestion no useful information was gathered in favour of the Respondents during the cross-examination of PW1.
11. The Complainant’s son Thiru Petchivel, who was the victim in this case, filed proof affidavit and examined as PW2. His proof affidavit corroborated the evidence of PW1. In his proof affidavit, PW2 submits that he was taken by the police on 15.01.2020 at about 09.00 PM and he was tortured in the police station by the Respondents and on 16.01.2020 he was not provided any food from morning to noon and put him in the lockup room and at about 03.00 PM the 2nd Respondent tied his hand and legs and dropped the gas cylinder on his right leg and he cried not bearing the pain and later gone to unconscious. Then he was taken to one Rosemary Hospital and put an injection and produced him before the learned Magistrate about the torture meted out in the hands of the Respondents. Thereafter they took him to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. The Doctors in the hospital, who treated him, did not ask how the injuries sustained by him but they put bandage. But the pain was immense and he did not sleep on the whole night.
12. PW2 further submits that on the next day 17.01.2020 his mother PW1 and his elder brother Thiru Bharathiraja came to the hospital to see him but they were not permitted to meet him by the police and the hospital workers. On 24.01.2020 on the information from the Doctors, his mother and brother came to see him. His condition was very worse and after taking x-ray they found a fracture on his right leg and surgery was conducted on him and he was taking treatment as inpatient for more than 10 days and when he was in the hospital, his mother sent this complaint before this Commission on 20.01.2020. In order to hide the assault on PW2 and caused fracture to him, the Respondents had registered a false case against him with the help of the Inspector of Police Tmt.Rameswari. The defacto complainant Thiru Ayyappan is his relative and there was previous enmity in between their families and using this enmity between them the Respondents filed a false case against him. Therefore, PW2 prayed to take appropriate action against the Respondents and award suitable compensation to him.
13. During the cross-examination PW2 denied the suggestion that the signature found in the alleged consent letter dated 24.01.2020 given to the hospital as not him which was enclosed along with the medical records in Ex.P1 series. But he admitted another signature found in the consent letter is his brother’s signature. Except this suggestion no specific questions put on him regarding with the torture meted out him in the hands of Respondents as mentioned in the complaint as well as in his proof affidavit in detailed manner. PW2 deposed naturally regarding with the incident took place on 10.12.2019 and on 15.01.2019 in his house and the illegal detention of PW2 in the police station and the brutal assault made against him in the police station by the Respondents and causing fracture on his right leg. PW1 & PW2 corroborated each other and no contradiction found in their evidence and no useful information was gathered in favour of the Respondents during the crossexamination of PW1 & PW2. Hence the evidence of PW1 & PW2 inspires the confidence of this Commission and the same is acceptable one. During the pendency of this case, it is reported that PW2 Petchivel was expired.
14. The 2nd Respondent filed proof affidavit and examined as RW1. In his proof affidavit RW1 submit that a case was registered in 19/2020 U/s 341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act on the complaint given by one Thiru Ayyappan. They searched for Petchivel to arrest him in the above case. He and the Inspector of Police Tmt.Rameswari went to the place in which they received secret information that the accused Petchivel was hiding near Kurukkuthurai railway gate. When he saw them he attempted to escape from the arrest and jumped from the railway track and fell down in a ditch and sustained injury and he was unable to stand and they helped him and after giving first aid they brought him to the police station. Later, before the confession mahazar witness the accused Petchivel was arrested in Cr.No.19/2020. In the consent letter dated 24.01.2020 given in the hospital he mentioned that he sustained fracture injury in an accident and his brother Thiru Bharathiraja also attested in the consent letter as a witness. The Complainant’s son Thiru Petchivel is a habitual offender and 20 cases are pending against him and to prove the same RW1 filed 20 FIR copies and the same were marked as Exs.R1to R20.
15. During the cross-examination RW1 admitted that in Ex.P2 remand report there was no mention that in which time PW2 was taken for remand. He also admitted that he did not mention in which hospital first aid was given to PW2. RW1 also admitted that when Thiru Petchivel was taken to the judicial custody he was unable to walk and after seeing him, the learned Magistrate ordered that till his recovery he has to admit in Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. The admission of RW1 during the cross-examination is as follows:-
“Ϫj tH¡»š ng¢Ántiy vªj njÂæš, v¤jid kâ¡F ifJ brŒnj‹ v‹w égu¤ij vdJ ã%gz th¡F_y¤Âš F¿¥Ã£L¡ Twéšiy v‹whš rçjh‹. v‹ål« fh£l¥gL« fhtš mil¥ò m¿¡if efš krhM,2 MF«. mªj tH¡»š mtiu v¤jid kâ¡F fhtš mil¥Ã‰fhf miH¤J¢
br‹nwh« vd¡ Twéšiy v‹whš rçjh‹. . . . . . . vdJ ã%gz
th¡F_y« g¤Â 1š mog£l ng¢ÁntY¡F KjYjé brŒJ ãiya« bfh©L tªnjh« v‹W brhšèæU¥gš vªj kU¤Jtkidæš it¤J KjYjé brŒnjh« vd F¿¥Ã£L¡ Twéšiy v‹whš rçjh‹. . . . . . . ng¢ÁntYit fhtš mil¥ò¡F K‹åiy¥gL¤J«nghJ mt® el¡f Koahkš k‰wt® cjéÍl‹ ÏU¥gij F‰wéaš eLt® gh®¤jjhfΫ, mtU¡F ÂUbešntè kU¤Jt¡ fšYhç kU¤Jtkidæš njit¥gL« tiu kU¤Jt Á»¢ir më¡FkhW«
c¤jué£LŸsjhf krhM.2š fhz¥gL»wJ v‹whš rçjh‹. fhtš ãiya¤Âš it¤J ng¢ÁntYit eh§fŸ jh¡»a fhuz¤jhšjh‹ mtU¡F bfhL§fha« V‰g£L mt® kU¤Jtkidæš 10 eh£fŸ Á»¢ir bg‰wh® v‹whš rçašy. krhM.1š ehD« 1« v®kDjhuU« ng¢ÁntYit jh¡» fha¥gl¤Âajhf F¿¥òfŸ fhz¥gL»wJ v‹whš rçjh‹.”
So, from the admission of RW1 during the cross-examination also proved the fact that PW2 was assaulted by the Respondents in a brutal manner and his right leg was fractured and took treatment in the hospital for nearly 10 days.
16. The 1st Respondent filed proof affidavit and examined as RW2. In his proof affidavit he reiterated the same averments of RW1. During the cross-examination RW2 admitted in most of the suggestions put forth by the Complainant’s counsel. The admission of RW2 during the cross-examination is as follows:-
“ÏwªJnghd ng¢Ántiy eh§fŸ ifJ brŒa K‰gL«nghJ mt® j©lths¤ij¤ jh©o F¤J ÑnH éGªjjhš mog£lJ vd vdJ ã%gz th¡F_y¤Âš F¿¥Ã£LŸns‹ v‹whš rçjh‹. m›thW fha« V‰g£lj‰F mtU¡F KjYjé
Á»¢ir¡fhf kU¤Jtkid miH¤J¢ br‹nwhkh v‹whš Ïšiy.”
So, from the cross-examination of RW2 it seems that PW2 sustained injury but he was not taken to the hospital for first aid by the Respondents police. RW2 also admitted that it was found from the endorsement made by the learned Magistrate in the remand report Ex.P2 that PW2 sustained injuries because of the brutal assault made against him by the 1st & 2nd Respondents.
The admission of RW2 in this aspect is as follows:-
“v‹ål« fh£l¥gL« krhM,2 Mtz¤Âš ng¢Ántiy ÂUbešntè 4« F‰wéaš eLtçl« K‹åiy¥gL¤J«nghJ mtU¡F tyJfhèš btŸisãw ng©£vŒ£ f£l¥g£L«, KH§fhY¡F Ñœ k‰W« tyJ ifæš Å¡f¡ fha§fŸ ÏUªjJ vd F¿¥Ãl¥g£LŸsJ v‹whY«, vÂçia érhç¡F«nghJ mt® j‹id j‹ f©iz f£oé£L éky‹ k‰W« kfhuh#‹ j‹ tyJfhèš Áè©l® ngh£L é£ld® k‰W« y¤Âahš nghÄrh® v‹ clš KGtJ« mo¤jh®fŸ vd cŸsjh v‹whš
m›thWjh‹ cŸsJ. . . . . . nkY« F‰wéaš eLt® vÂç k‰wt®fŸ cjéæ‹¿ el¡f Koahj ãiyæš ÏUªjh® vd jh‹ gh®¤jjhf¡ F¿¥Ã£LŸsh® v‹whš rçjh‹. ”
17. A specific suggestion put forth to the RW2 that if any person during the arrest sustained any injury, they have to give first aid to him for which he replied that he did not know whether PW2 was taken to the hospital before his remand. The admission of RW2 in this regard is as follows:-
“vªjbthU egiuÍ« ifJ brŒÍ«nghJ Kjèš mtiu kU¤Jt Á»¢ir¡F£gL¤Â mtuJ clèš fha« vJΫ Ïšiy vd cW brŒj ÃwFjh‹ F‰wéaš eLtçl« K‹åiy¥gL¤j nt©L« v‹whš rçjh‹. Mdhš Ϫj tH¡»š fha«g£l
ng¢Ántiy m›thW F‰wéaš eLt® K‹ghf
K‹åiy¥gL¤J« K‹ kU¤Jtkid¡F miH¤J¢ br‹nwhkh v‹whš mJg‰¿ vd¡F¤bjçahJ.”
So, from the admission of RW2 during the cross-examination also proved the fact that first aid was not given to the injured PW2 by the Respondents which amounts to violation of human rights of PW2. Even an accused in a criminal has also having human rights but the Respondents failed to protect the human rights of PW2. RW2 also admitted the endorsement made by the learned
Magistrate during the remand about the assault made by the 1st & 2nd Respondents against PW2 and caused injuries to him and he was unable to walk without the help of another. So, it reveal from the cross-examination of RW1 & RW2 that PW2 was assaulted by the Respondents in a brutal manner and his right leg was fractured and he took treatment in the hospital for nearly 10 days.
18. It is the case of custodial torture by the Respondents No.1 & 2 against the PW2. PW1 is the mother of PW2 and PW2 is the victim in this case. Though the Complainant proved her case by producing the documents Ex.P1 Medical records and Ex.P2 remand report, the Respondents only filed the copies of FIRs registered against the PW2 as Exs.R1 to R20 which will not help to substantiate the case of the Respondents that when the Respondents went to Kurukkuthurai railway gate to secure the PW2, in order to escape from the arrest he jumped from the railway track and fell down into a ditch and sustained injuries. However, I have perused the materials on record and there is no concrete evidence to prove that PW2 fell down into a ditch and sustained injuries as alleged by the Respondents. It is the case of the Complainant that her son was taken on 15.01.2020 by the Respondents police and he was detained till 16.01.2020 in illegal custody and he was subjected to torture in the hands of the Respondents in cruel manner and due to the assault he sustained fracture and it was not informed to them. PW1 & PW2 proved their case through the cogent evidence and the documents Exs.P1 medical records & P2 remand report.
19. Ex.P1 is the medical records of PW2. In Ex.P1 there is a medical admission sheet and the follow up sheets. It is very worst to say that the Doctor, who seen first PW2 on 16.01.2020 did not mention injury sustained by PW2 and he mechanically filled the OP chit and sent him for admission. Even though the learned Magistrate mentioned in Ex.P2 remand report that
PW2 was unable to walk, but the Doctor, who seen the PW2 on 16.01.2020 did not mention the injuries sustained by him. Surprisingly in another medial document dated 16.01.2020 it was mentioned that the patient brought by police. In such cases, the Doctors shall examine the body of accused thoroughly and if any injuries found on his body it has to be recorded. But the duty Doctors, whose names mentioned in that investigation report as Dr.Charles, Dr.Akhilesh and Dr.Dessik, did not mention the injuries sustained by PW2 even they mentioned in the examination as swelling. It reveal from the Ex.P1 medical records that PW2 Petchivel admitted in Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital on 16.01.2020 and he was taking treatment as inpatient in the hospital and surgery was conducted in his leg on 24.01.2020 for the fracture sustained by him.
20. The another document Ex.P2 remand report was marked through RW1 during his cross-examination. A perusal of the Ex.P2 remand report, the learned Magistrate made an order dated 16.01.2020 and the same is as follows:-
“Accused is produced before me at 06.45 PM on 16.01.2020. Accused has white band aid on his right leg below the knee and swelling on his right hand. On being inquired, accused states that
“v‹ f©iz f£oé£L Sub-Inspector ékyh k‰W« Police kfhuh#‹ v‹ tyJ fhèš Áè©l® ngh£L é£ld®. y¤Âahš nghÄrh® v‹ clš KGtJ« mo¤jh®fŸ.”
It is noticed that accused is not able to walk without others help.
Grounds of arrest and right to legal aid are explained to accused. Perused the materials. Prima facie accusation is well founded and investigation is still pending. Judicial custody is sought on the ground that to prevent the accused from further commission of offence.
Accused is remanded in judicial custody till 30.01.2020.
It is also ordered that accused shall be given treatment at T.V.M.C.H. Cell guard as long as required.
Therefore, it is very clear from the remand report that PW2 informed to the learned Magistrate at the time of remand that he was beaten by the Respondents police in brutal manner and caused injuries to him and the learned Magistrate advised the police to give treatment to PW2. So, this one document is enough to come to a conclusion that PW2 was assaulted by the Respondents in brutal manner and caused injuries to him and because of the injuries sustained by PW2 he could not able to walk without the help of others and hence the learned Magistrate has ordered that PW2 shall be given treatment at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital as long as required.
21. During the arguments, the Respondents submit that the PW2 has more than 20 cases and the complaint made before this Commission against them is false. It is an admitted universal truth that even a convict person is entitled for human rights. Because of PW2 is having more than 20 cases in his credit, no police are permitted to beat him or committed torture on him. The learned counsel appearing for the Complainant argued that the Complainant has proved her case by oral evidence of PW1 & PW2 which is corroborate each other regarding the violation of human rights committed by the Respondents against PW2 and also the documentary evidence Ex.P1medical records of PW2 & Ex.P2 remand report is substantiated the case of the
Complainant.
22. Surprisingly in the counter statement of the Respondents they had stated that they had registered a case against PW2 in Cr.No.19/2020 on the complaint given by one Thiru Raja S/o Anthoni and for that case they searched for PW2. But in the proof affidavit, RW1 has stated that on the complaint given by one Ayyappan they had registered a case in Cr.No.19/2020 and search the accused PW1. The RW2 also stated the same version in his proof affidavit which shows the lethargic attitude of the Respondents. It was informed that PW2 Thiru Petchivel was died later. But this Commission cannot say that PW2 was died due to the assault of the Respondents. But the Complainant proved her case that her son PW2 was subjected to harassment and torture in the hands of the Respondents police and the same amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant and the
Respondents are liable to compensate the same.
23. It is essential to mention the Paragraph 25 of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras reported in 2002(1)MWN(Cr.)237 is as
follows:-
“25. Custodial crimes, as the dailies and monthly magazines give out the wild truth of atrocities of police due to the excesses exerted upon poor and hapless closely exhibit the violation of human dignity and destruction of human personality. There is no greater affront to human dignity than torture and inhuman treatment, which need to be condemned in strongest terms.”
It is also essential to mention Paragraph 25 of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2012(4) CTC 781.
“25. In Bhim Sing, MLA v. State of J & K, 1985(4) SCC 677, this Court expressed the view that the Police Officers should have greatest regard for personal liberty of citizens as they are the custodians of law and order and, hence, they should not flout the law by stopping to bizarre acts of lawlessness. It was observed that custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties, for their duty is to protect and not to abduct.”
It is also essential to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India reported in AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 610(1).
“Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government became law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilized nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic “No”. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under trials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law”
The above rulings are also squarely applicable to the case on hand.
24. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments
of both the parties, it is established by the Complainant that on 15.01.2020 the Respondents had taken the Complainant’s son Petchivel to the police station and detained him illegally for two days and in the police station the Respondents had brutally assaulted him and caused fracture injury on his leg and due to the fracture injury sustained by him he was admitted in Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and he was taken treatment as inpatient for 10 days and a surgery was undertaken in his right leg which caused him pain and mental agony. The Complainant in his complaint and PW1 & PW2 in their evidence had categorically proved the assault made by the Respondents against PW2. Though they were cross-examined by the Respondents there is no specific cross-examination about the alleged overt act stated by the witnesses in their chief examination and no useful information was gathered in favour of the Respondents. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 & PW2 coupled with the Ex.P1 medical records and Ex.P2 remand order of the learned
Magistrate and the connected materials categorically established the fact that
PW2 was assaulted by the Respondents and caused fracture injuries to him. Later, it was informed that the PW2 Petchivel died on 12.05.2024 and the death certificate was produced to prove the same. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondents had violated the human rights of the Complainant. This Point is answered accordingly.
25. Point No.2: – While answering the Point No.1 this Commission has 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 Respondents and fixing of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation would be fair and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence this Commission holds that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- each from the Respondents No.1 & 2 and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them. This Point is answered accordingly.
26. In the result, this Commission recommends as follows:-
(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) to the Complainant
Tmt.Chandra, W/o Esakkiraja residing in Door No.37, Ennayiram Pillai Koil West Street, Tirunelveli Town, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each from the Respondents No.1 & 2 (Totally Rupees Four Lakhs only).
(ii) This Commission also recommends to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Respondents No.1 & 2 as per the Rules.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Complainant Side Witnesses :
PW1 Tmt.E.Chandra
PW2 Thiru E.Petchivel
Complainant Side Documents :
Ex.P1 series Copy of the medical records pertaining to Thiru Petchivel
Ex.P2 16.01.2020 Certified copy of the remand report.
Respondents Side Witnesses :
RW1 Thiru R.Vimalan
RW2 Thiru N.Maharajan
Respondents Side Documents :
Ex.R1 15.11.2013 Copy of FIR No.139/2013 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R2 24.11.2013 Copy of FIR No.140/2013 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R3 13.08.2014 Copy of FIR No.625/2014 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R4 18.02.2016 Copy of FIR No.93/2016 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R5 12.06.2016 Copy of FIR No.354/2016 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R6 21.07.2016 Copy of FIR No.427/2016 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R7 06.02.2017 Copy of FIR No.116/2017 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R8 08.12.2018 Copy of FIR No.432/2018 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R9 06.06.2019 Copy of FIR No.189/2019 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R10 23.08.2019 Copy of FIR No.282/2019 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R11 28.10.2019 Copy of FIR No.366/2019 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R12 16.01.2020 Copy of FIR No.19/2020 of Tirunelveli Town PS and copy of remand report and confession statement.
Ex.R13 07.08.2020 Copy of FIR No.1032/2020 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R14 24.04.2021 Copy of FIR No.181/2021 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R15 19.06.2021 Copy of FIR No.253/2021 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R16 04.01.2022 Copy of FIR No.4/2022 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R17 29.11.2022 Copy of FIR No.246/2022 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R18 02.01.2023 Copy of FIR No.2/2023 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R19 04.03.2023 Copy of FIR No.71/2023 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Ex.R20 24.06.2023 Copy of FIR No.252/2023 of Tirunelveli Town PS.
Sd/-
MEMBER
To
The Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009
Copy to
(1)Tmt.E.Chandra, W/o Esakkiraja, No.37 Ennayiram Pillai Koil West Street, Tirunelveli Town.
(2)Thiru N.Maharajan, Head Constable, Door No.46, Police Station Complex, Tirunelveli Town.
(3)Thiru R.Vimalan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Door No.SI-1, Police Quarters, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli City.
Mmk 21.05.2025
//BY ORDER//
Assistant Registrar
