HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L., MEMBER. Tmt.V.Santhi … Complainant -Vs-
STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TAMIL NADU
‘Thiruvarangam’
No.143 P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai
(Greenways Road), Chennai-600 028.
Tuesday, the 16th day of December 2025
SHRC Case No.12372/22/41 of 2021
PRESENT :
HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN, M.Sc., M.L.,
MEMBER.
Tmt.V.Santhi … Complainant
-Vs-
(1)Thiru S.Harikannan, Sub-Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
(2)Thiru R.Saravanakumar, PC.258, West Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
(3)Thiru S.Pandiyaraj, HC.5073, West Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
… Respondents
ORDER
Gist of the complaint allegations is as follows:-
The Complainant was resided earlier in Kaliammal Compound, Natarajapuram 2nd Street, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District and now she is residing in Keezhapudur Village in Tenkasi District. She is a deserted woman and she had two daughters and her younger daughter is a special child. When she was residing in the earlier address along with her children, her relative’s son was supported her for running her life. While so, her relative’s son involved in a fight with other persons and the Respondents came to her house without any woman police at 11.00 PM for searching her relative’s son and told that she was harboring her relative’s son and asked his whereabouts and in the name of enquiry, the Respondents acted in indecent manner by removing their dresses and abused them in filthy language and assaulted them and also snatched a sum of Rs.15,000/- and two cell phones of herself and her elder daughter and also they spilled the food on the floor which was kept in the kitchen. The Respondent came to her house with an intoxicated condition and they tortured them about 1-1/2 hours. Therefore, the action on the part of the Respondents amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant and prays to take suitable action against them.
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 Respondents did not know the Complainant or in which address she is residing and they did not tell how many children she had and the Complainant simply says about one relative in her complaint. But the Respondents did not know who her relative is. The Respondents submit that one Palanikumar lodged a complaint against one Arun and his friend Muthuramalingam on 17.10.2021 that he was abused and assaulted by them and on the basis of his complaint a case was registered in Cr.No.899/2021 U/s 294(b), 342, 323, 324, 387 & 506(ii) of IPC and the 1st Respondent took up the investigation. When he searched the accused persons, they absconded and on secret information the accused Arun was arrested by him on 23.10.2021 at 10.00 AM near Manthi Thoppu bus stop and he was remanded to judicial custody and the 2nd & 3rd Respondents helped him for such arrest. But the Complainant, who was supported by the said Arun, thinking that the help of Arun will not get her because of such arrest. Hence to wreck vengeance against the Respondents, she had lodged this complaint against the Respondents. But the Respondents did not go to the house of the Complainant and did not abuse or assault her and her daughters as stated by the Complainant in her complaint. Hence they prayed to dismiss 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 the Respondents came to her house without any woman police at 11.00 PM for searching her relative’s son and told that she was harboring her relative’s son and asked his whereabouts and in the name of enquiry, the Respondents acted in indecent manner by removing their dresses and abused them in filthy language and assaulted them and also snatched a sum of Rs.15,000/- and two cell phone of herself and her elder daughter and also they spilled the food on the floor which was kept in the kitchen. The Respondent came to her house with an intoxicated condition and they tortured them about 1-1/2 hours. Therefore, the action on the part of the Respondents amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant and prays to take suitable action against them.
5. Per contra, the case of the Respondents is that one Palanikumar lodged a complaint against one Arun and his friend Muthuramalingam on 17.10.2021 that he was abused and assaulted by them and on the basis of his complaint a case was registered in Cr.No.899/2021 U/s 294(b), 342, 323, 324, 387 & 506(ii) of IPC and the 1st Respondent took up the investigation. When he searched the accused persons, they absconded and on secret information the accused Arun was arrested by him on 23.10.2021 at 10.00 AM near Manthi Thoppu bus stop and he was remanded to judicial custody and the 2nd & 3rd Respondents helped him for such arrest. But the Complainant, who was supported by the said Arun, thinking that the help of Arun will not get her because of such arrest. Hence to wreck vengeance against the Respondents, she had lodged this complaint against the Respondents. But the Respondents did not go to the house of the Complainant and did not abuse or assault her and her daughters as stated by the Complainant in her complaint. Hence they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. In order to prove her case the Complainant examined herself as PW1 and filed proof affidavit and reiterated the averments contained in the complaint. No document was filed by the PW1.
7. Per contra, all the three Respondents examined themselves as RW1 to RW3 respectively and filed proof affidavit and reiterated the averments contained in their common counter statement. RW1 filed nine documents and the same were marked as Exs.R1 to R9.
8. 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.
9. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and in her proof affidavit PW1 reiterated the same averments stated in her complaint. She also submit that on 21.10.2021 at about 11.00 PM the Respondents trespassed into her house on suspicion that she was harboring one Arunkumar in her house and they asked the whereabouts of the said Arunkumar and in the name of enquiry her dresses were removed and they were treated by the Respondents in bad manner and her special child was also assaulted by the Respondents and they snatched a sum of Rs.15,000/- from her and spilled the food prepared for dinner by the Respondents. During the cross-examination PW1 admitted that the said Arunkumar was her brother’s son. The Respondents’ counsel put a question to PW1 that the Respondents searched the house when she was residing in a rental house and the same was admitted by PW1. PW1 deposed that she was residing in the first floor and in the ground floor house owner was residing and the neighbour name was Parameswari W/o Kandasamy. She denied the other suggestions put forth by the Respondents’ counsel. PW1 admitted that after 4 months of the incident she vacated the rental house and she went to reside at Sattur Road. Except that no useful information was gathered in favour of the Respondents during her cross-examination.
10. The 1st Respondent filed proof affidavit and examined as RW1. In his proof affidavit RW1 reiterated the same averments made in the common counter statement. RW1 submits in his proof affidavit that he did not know the Complainant and he never visited her house as stated in the proof affidavit of PW1 and the Respondents did not snatch any money from her and they did not abuse or assault the Complainant and her daughters. RW1 submitted 9 documents and the same were marked as Exs.R1 to R9. During the cross-examination RW1 admitted that he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Kovilpatti West Police Station on 21.10.2021 and other two Respondents were working in the law and order duty. RW1 also admitted that he was the investigating officer in the case in Kovilpatti PS Cr.No.899/2021 which was registered against one Arun. RW1 admitted that Arun was arrested on 23.10.2021. However, he denied the other suggestions put forth by the Complainant’s counsel.
11. The 2nd Respondent filed proof affidavit and examined as RW2. In his proof affidavit he also reiterated the same averments made in the common counter statement field by them. During the cross-examination, RW2 admitted that he knows the sister of the Complainant namely Thilagavathy and he spoken with her by phone. RW2 admitted that he assisted the 1st Respondent in the case in Cr.No.899/2021.
12. The 3rd Respondent filed proof affidavit and examined as RW3. In his proof affidavit he also reiterated the same averments made in the common counter statement field by them. During the cross-examination, RW3 admitted that he assisted the 1st Respondent in the case in Cr.No.899/2021 and the 1st Respondent was the investigating officer in that case.
13. Among 9 documents marked by RW1, Ex.R5 is the statement given by one Amirthavel, who is said to be the house owner of the Complainant. It seems to be that it is the denial of the Complainant’s complaint in each and every line. The said Amirthavel was examined by the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Circle, on 02.08.2023 and he has stated in that statement that the allegations of the Complainant are totally false. In similar manner another statement of one Parameswari was recorded by the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Circle and the same was marked as Ex.R6 and she is said to be the neighbour of the Complainant. One Tmt.Arockia Jency, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Kovilpatti West police station gave a statement before the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Circle and the same was marked as Ex.R7 and she submits in the statement that she went to the house of the Complainant on 01.08.2023, 02.08.2023 and 07.08.2023 for enquiry regarding with the complaint filed by the Complainant before this Commission and at that time she was informed that the Complainant vacated the house 1-1/2 years prior to the date of enquiry.
14. It is the case of the Complainant that she is a deserted woman supported by one Arun and on 21.10.2021 at about 11.00 PM, the Respondents police trespassed into her house in an inebriated condition and treated them in bad manner and abused them in filthy language and removed their dresses and they assaulted the Complainant and her daughters and snatched a sum of Rs.15,000/- and two cell phones from her in the name of enquiry and they were tortured them in her house for 1-1/2 hours on that day. To prove her allegations, the Complainant examined herself as PW1 and filed proof affidavit and no document was filed by her. On the side of the Respondents they examined themselves as RW1 to RW3 and RW1 filed 9 documents and the same were marked as Exs.R1 to R9. Though the Respondents denied the allegations and averments made by the Complainant in her complaint as well as proof affidavit, Exs.R5 & R6 which were marked by RW1 revealed the real story of this case.
15. Ex.R5 is said to be the statement of the house owner of the Complainant one Amirthavel. Ex.R6 is the statement given by one Parameswari, neighbour of the Complainant. Both the statements meticulously dictated by someone. It is the clear statement of denial of the complaint of the Complainant in each and every line. Moreover, the said Amirthavel and Parameswari were not examined by the Respondents that those statements were given by them. Ex.R7 is the statement of one woman Sub-Inspector of Police stating that she went to the earlier house of the Complainant after she vacated her house 1-1/2 years later to enquire about the allegations of the Complainant against the Respondents.
16. It is the clear and admitted case that the Complainant is a deserted woman and supported by one Arun. The Respondents police went to the house of the Complainant to the search of the said Arun on the fateful day without any woman police and they asked the whereabouts of the said Arun and also harassed the Complainant and her daughters including a special child. There is no chance to the Complainant to lodge such complaint with false allegations against the Respondents since she is surviving with two children among them one is a special child. A perusal of the deposition of PW1 it proves the violation of human rights of the Complainant and the torture inflicted on her and the stand taken by the Respondents that they did not know the Complainant and they did not go to the residence of the Complainant and they did not give any torture to her is not acceptable one. So, in this juncture, the evidence of the Complainant is believable and the Respondents failed to examine the said Amirthavel and Parameswari as witnesses on their side and subjected to cross-examination to disprove the case of the Complainant.
17. 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.
18. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments of both the parties, this Commission is of the considered view that it is categorically proved by the Complainant that the Respondents without any woman police went to the house of the Complainant in the night time to search the accused Arun, who involved in the case in Kovilpatti PS Cr.No.899/2021 and asked the whereabouts of the said Arun and at that time they harassed the Complainant as alleged in her complaint. But the Respondents failed to disprove the case of the Complainant by examining the house owner of the Complainant Amirthavel and neighbour of the Complainant Parameswari and subjected to cross-examination to substantiate the statements allegedly given by them in Ex.R5 & R6 and even though PW1 was cross-examined by the Respondents, no useful information was gathered in favour of them. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondents had violated human rights of the Complainant and hence they are liable to pay compensation to her. This Point is answered accordingly.
19. 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.2,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant would be fair and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence this Commission holds that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st Respondent and Rs.50,000/- each from the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as compensation and also initiate disciplinary proceedings against them. 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.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the Complainant Tmt.V.Santhi, W/o Vanaraja, residing in No.11/42 Arasa Marathu Street, Kezzhapudur Village, Sanganaperi PO, Nelkattum Seval, Tenkasi Dt., within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st Respondent and Rs.50,000/- each from the 2nd & 3rd Respondents as per the Rules.
(ii) This Commission also recommends to initiate disciplinary proceedings against all the Respondents as per the Rules.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Complainant Side Witnesses :
PW1 Tmt.Santhi
Complainant Side Documents : – NIL –
Respondents Side Witness :
RW1 Thiru S.Harikannan
RW2 Thiru R.Saravanakumar
RW3 Thiru S.Pandiyaraj
Respondents Side Documents :
Ex.R1 21.08.2023 Copy of enquiry report.
Ex.R2 — Copy of statement given by the 1st Respondent.
Ex.R3 — Copy of statement given by the 3rd Respondent.
Ex.R4 01.08.2023 Copy of statement given by the 2nd Respondent.
Ex.R5 02.08.2023 Copy of statement given by one A.Amirthavel.
Ex.R6 — Copy of statement given by one Parameswari.
Ex.R7 21.08.2023 Copy of statement given by one Arockiya Jency.
Ex.R8 17.10.2023 Copy of FIR No.899/2021 of Kovilpatti West PS.
Ex.R9 21.08.2023 Copy of certificate given by the VAO, Kovilpatti Town.
Sd/-
MEMBER
To
The Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009
Copy to
(1) Tmt.V.Santhi, W/o Vanaraja, No.11/42 Arasa Marathu Street, Kezzhapudur Village, Sanganaperi PO, Nelkattum Seval, Tenkasi Dt.-627758.
(2)Thiru S.Harikannan, SI of Police, No.1/132 Middle Street, Kulasekaranallur, Ottapidaram Tk., Thoothukudi Dt.
(3)Thiru R.Saravanakumar, PC.258, No.3/191/5 Ramalingampuram, Vanaramutti, Thoothukudi Dt.
(4)Thiru S.Pandiyaraj, HC.5073, No.26/3B Gurulingapuram, Sattur tk., Virudhunagar Dt.
Mmk 16.12.2025
//BY ORDER//
Assistant Registrar
