HON’BLE THIRU V.KANNADASAN order

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

Tuesday, the 6th day of May 2025

SHRC Case No.900 of 2017

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

Thiru E.Baranidharan … Complainant

-Vs-

(1)Thiru Murugan, the then Inspector of Police, Pallikonda Police Station, Vellore District.
(2)Tmt.Kavitha, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Pallikonda Police Station, Vellore District.
… Respondents

ORDER

Gist of the complaint allegations is as follows:-
The Complainant is an Engineering Graduate and doing Construction Business and he belongs to Hindu Adi-Dravidar community and he is residing in Pallikonda in Vellore District. On 22.12.2016 at 07.30 PM when the Complainant was standing near mobile a Tiffin shop to purchase food for his ailing father, the 2nd Respondent came with 4 policemen and surrounded the Complainant and the 2nd Respondent pulled lathi from her motorcycle and started beating the Complainant black and blue and removed his shirt and pulled to the police station in the market with full public view without shirt. The 2nd Respondent shouted at Complainant in filthy language and told him that “You bloody SC fellow, you are roaming with jeans pant, cooling glass and you are not giving respect to us” by saying these words and made him to stand without pant and shirt with only jatty. The 2nd Respondent often mentioned about the Complainant’s community in a menial intention. Meanwhile the 1st Respondent entered into the police station and he also started to beat the Complainant without any enquiry. The 1st Respondent started enquiry about the case in Cr.No.355/2016 in which FIR the Complainant’s name is not mentioned. But the 1st Respondent wanted to include the name of the Complainant in order to harass the Complainant on the basis of a false complaint obtained from one Mohan, who was the Complainant’s relative, which is civil in nature. The 2nd Respondent told the 1st Respondent that he never used to salute them and never give respect and never afraid of police and he is roaming with jeans pant. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent beaten the Complainant black and blue with lathi and removed the Complainant’s pant, shirt and jatty also and threatened the Complainant to shoot him in encounter if he see him again. Then he ordered the policemen to tie the Complainant’s legs and hand and don’t give him water and food. Let him die in mosquitoes and don’t produce him before the Court today. Then he left the police station. The 2nd Respondent refused to allow him to pass urine and never gave food. The very next day the 1st Respondent came to the police station and started beating the Complainant. When the Complainant asked that who gave the complaint against him, the 1st Respondent abused in filthy language and threatened him not to disclose anything to Magistrate at the time of remand. The next day on 23.12.2016 at about 07.30 PM the Complainant was produced before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore for judicial custody. Even though the Complainant reported about the ill treatment of the Respondents, the Learned Magistrate has not taken any steps against the police and refused to give medical treatment. 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 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 all specifically admitted herein. The allegations against the Respondents that they had abused the Complainant in filthy language and assaulted him in brutal manner and threatened him not to reveal anything against the Respondents before the Learned Magistrate at the time of remand are all false. But the real fact is that the Complainant was arrested on 22.12.2016 at about 09.00 PM in Pallikonda Police Station Cr.No.400/2016 U/s 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC for assaulting one Mohan S/o Rajan and his arrest was properly informed to his family members. When the arrest was made by the 2nd Respondent, she was assisted by two police personnel of Pallikonda Police Station and both belong to SC/ST community. When co-workers belong to particular community the 2nd Respondent ill treating the Complainant using community name is highly impossible. She never used such a word or ill treated anyone like that. The Complainant was involved in kidnapping of one Ravi in Pallikonda Police Station Cr.No.355/2016 U/s 363 of IPC. 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.

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 22.12.2016 at 07.30 PM when the Complainant was standing near a mobile Tiffin shop to purchase food for his ailing father, the 2nd Respondent came with 4 policemen and surrounded the Complainant and the 2nd Respondent pulled lathi from her motorcycle and started beating the Complainant black and blue and removed his shirt and pulled to the police station in the market with full public view without shirt. The 2nd Respondent shouted at Complainant in filthy language and told him that “You bloody SC fellow, you are roaming with jeans pant, cooling glass and you are not giving respect to us” by saying these words and made him to stand without pant and shirt with only jatty. The 2nd Respondent often mentioned about the Complainant’s community in a menial intention. Meanwhile the 1st Respondent entered into the police station and he also started to beat the Complainant without any enquiry. The 1st Respondent started enquiry about the case in Cr.No.355/2016 in which FIR the Complainant’s name is not mentioned. But the 1st Respondent wanted to include the name of the Complainant in order to harass the Complainant on the basis of a false complaint obtained from one Mohan, who was the Complainant’s relative, which is civil in nature. The 2nd Respondent told the 1st Respondent that he never used to salute them and never give respect and never afraid of police and he is roaming with jeans pant. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent beaten the Complainant black and blue with lathi and removed the Complainant’s pant, shirt and jatty also and threatened the Complainant to shoot him in encounter if he see him again. Then he ordered the policemen to tie the Complainant’s legs and hand and don’t give him water and food. Let him die in mosquitoes and don’t produce him before the Court today. Then he left the police station. The 2nd Respondent refused to allow him to pass urine and never gave food. The very next day the 1st Respondent came to the police station and started beating the Complainant. When the Complainant asked that who gave the complaint against him, the 1st Respondent abused in filthy language and threatened him not to disclose anything to Magistrate at the time of remand. The next day on 23.12.2016 at about 07.30 PM the Complainant was produced before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore for judicial custody. Even though the Complainant reported about the ill treatment of the Respondents, the Learned Magistrate has not taken any steps against the police and refused to give medical treatment. 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 them.

5. Per contra, the case of the Respondents is that the allegations against the Respondents that they had abused the Complainant in filthy language and assaulted him in brutal manner and threatened him not to reveal anything against the Respondents before the Learned Magistrate at the time of remand are all false. But the real fact is that the Complainant was arrested on 22.12.2016 at about 09.00 PM in Pallikonda Police Station Cr.No.400/2016 U/s 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC for assaulting one Mohan S/o Rajan and his arrest was properly informed to his family members. When the arrest was made by the 2nd Respondent, she was assisted by two police personnel of Pallikonda Police Station and both belong to SC/ST community. When co-workers belong to particular community the 2nd Respondent ill treating the Complainant using community name is highly impossible. She never used such a word or ill treated anyone like that. The Complainant was involved in kidnapping of one Ravi in Pallikonda Police Station Cr.No.355/2016 U/s 363 of IPC. 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.

6. In order to prove his case, the Complainant examined himself as PW1 and filed proof affidavit and reiterated the averments contained in the complaint. No document was filed on the side of the Complainant.

7. Per contra, on behalf of the Respondents the 2nd Respondent examined herself as RW1 and filed proof affidavit and reiterated the averments contained in the common counter statement. To support her case, one Thiru K.Tamilazhagan, Police Constable, worked in Pallikonda Police Station was examined as RW2 and he also filed proof affidavit. RW1 marked Ex.R1 & R2 and RW2 marked Ex.R3.

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

9. The Complainant examined as PW1 and filed proof affidavit reiterated the averments made in his complaint. During the cross-examination, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents put most of the affirmative suggestions at PW1 and he simply replied yes. No one of the question put forth by the Respondents’ counsel to disprove the violation of human rights allegedly committed by the Respondents against the Complainant. Some of the questions put forth by the Learned counsel for the Respondents during the cross-examination of PW1 are as follows:-
“2« v®kDjhu® vdJ #hÂia F¿¥Ã£L k‰w fhty®fŸ K‹ v‹id £odh® v‹whš rçjh‹.
cl‹ gâòçÍ« fhty®fŸ g£oaèd¤ij rh®ªjt®fŸ ÏU¡F«nghJ 2« v®kDjhu® v‹id #h bgaiu brhšè v‹id £odh® v‹whš rçjh‹.
1« v®kDjhu® shoe fhyhš mo¤jh® v‹whš rçašy.
v‹ ÛJ Ϫj Ïu©L v®kDjhu®fS¡F« v‹ål« jå¥g£l énuhj« Ïšiy v‹whš rçjh‹. kåj cçik Ûwš brŒa¥g£lJ v‹whš rçjh‹.”
So, from the evidence of PW1 it reveals that the Respondents admitted that they had committed human rights violation against the Complainant.

10. Among the Respondents, the 1st Respondent Thiru Murugan, Inspector of Police, did not come forward to examine himself as witness and the 2nd Respondent Tmt.Kavitha, S.I. of Police filed proof affidavit and examined as RW1. In her proof affidavit she reiterated the same averments made in the common counter statement. During the cross-examination RW1 denied the most of suggestions put forth by the Learned Complainant’s counsel.

11. One Thiru K.Tamilazhagan, Police Constable, worked in Pallikonda Police Station was examined as RW2. In his proof affidavit RW2 submits that he was worked as Police Constable in Pallikonda Police Station, Vellore District. RW2 also copied the proof affidavit of RW1 and filed the same before this Commission. During the cross-examination RW2 admitted that when the Complainant was assaulted by the Respondents he was present there. RW2 admitted in the cross-examination that “eh‹ r«gt elªj xU kåjid mo¡F«nghJ cz®Î¥ó®tkhd mšyJ kdãiy gh¡f¥g£ltuhf ÏU¡f nt©L« v‹whš mo¡F«nghJ eh‹ g¡f¤Âš ÏUªnj‹”. RW2 deposed during the cross-examination that the 2nd Respondent did not abuse the PW1 by naming his caste.

12. RW1 & RW2 marked three documents. Ex.R1 is the FIR in Cr.No. 400/2016 and the FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint given by one Thiru Mohan against the Complainant as if on 20.12.2016 there was a wordy quarrel between him and his uncle Ramdoss and his uncle called the Complainant to come there and the Complainant came in a car and they assaulted him by hands and wooden log and criminally intimidated him and gone away and he lodged a complaint on 20.12.2016. Ex.R2 is the complaint given by one Arumugam of Pallikonda that the Complainant has illicit intimacy with his wife and took his wife with him and hence prayed to take appropriate action against the Complainant. Ex.R3 series are the remand orders, FIRs and complaints. In the remand orders in Cr.Nos.355/2016 and 400/2016, the Learned Magistrate has stated that no injuries found on the Complainant.

13. Heard both sides. Both the parties filed their written arguments. The counsel for the Complainant argued that RW2 himself admitted that he was there at the time of beating the Complainant and on the scene of occurrence. He also agreed that the name of the Complainant is not appeared in Cr.No.355/2016. The 1st Respondent has not filed proof affidavit to disprove the allegations made against him in the complaint. So, it is presumed that the 1st Respondent accepted the allegations made against him in the complaint. Hence, the Complainant prayed to award a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) as compensation and to take appropriate action against the Respondents.

14. The Respondents filed written argument and the oral argument was also heard. The counsel for the Respondents argued that the Complainant came with a concocted, motivated complaint against the Respondents. He comes up with new versions and contradictions every time starting from the complaint, proof affidavit and argument. During the cross-examination PW1 admitted that there is no previous enmity between him and the Respondents which clearly shows that the Respondents don’t have any grudge against the Complainant. PW1 all along alleged that he narrated his alleged ordeal to the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore, but he has not produced any records to corroborate it. But his concocted version is demolished by the Ex.R3 remand report which clearly shows that no allegation is recorded against the Respondents. Hence he prayed to dismiss the complaint.
15. But from the averments of the complaint and the evidence of PW1, it seems that the Complainant was taken by the 2nd Respondent on 22.12.2016 from the market place and he was brutally attacked by the 2nd Respondent and subsequently in the police station he was assaulted by the 1st Respondent after removing his all the dresses and made him nude and he was not permitted to answer the nature calls by the 2nd Respondent and finally he was remanded on 23.12.2016 at about 06.00 PM in two cases in Cr.No.355/2016 and Cr.No.400/2016 and in Cr.No.355/2016 the Complainant’s name is not found. The Complainant was abused by the Respondents by calling his caste name and assaulted him and to prove his case the Complainant was examined as PW1. But the during the cross-examination, the Respondents’ counsel put a suggestion that the Respondents had violated the human rights of the Complainant and they did not bring any contradictory evidence from PW1 in favour of them. The 1st Respondent, against whom serious allegations were leveled by the Complainant, was not examined himself as a witness and subject to cross-examine by the Complainant to disprove the allegations leveled against him in the complaint.

16. The 2nd Respondent examined herself as RW1 and when the suggestions put forth by the Complainant’s counsel, she admitted some violation done by the Respondents and some of the answers given by RW1 for the suggestions put forth by the Complainant’s counsel are as follows:-
“355/2016 09.07.2016 v‹w Kjš jftš m¿¡if guâju‹ ÛJ eh‹ gÂÎ brŒJŸns‹. nkš érhuiz eh‹ brŒaéšiy. fhtš ãiya¤Âš ã®thz¥gL¤Â mo¤jnghJ MŒthsU« ehD« ÏUªnjh« v‹whš rçašy. m›éj r«gt« vJΫ eilbgwéšiy. guâju‹ #h bgaiu F¿¥Ã£L eh‹ nftykhf ngÁnd‹ v‹whš rçašy . . . . . . guâju‹ g£lhjhç v‹W« mt® É‹° ng©£ btŸis r£il ngh£L tªjJ jh§fhkš tH¡F¥ gÂÎ brŒnj‹ v‹whš rçašy. . . . . . mí¤ v‹gt® guâjuid jh¡»ajhf guâju‹ òfh® bfhL¤J eh‹ mí¤ ÛJ elto¡if vL¡féšiy v‹whš rçašy. MŒths® ÛJ jåeg® tH¡F gÂÎ brŒa¥g£LŸsJ v‹whš mJ g‰¿ bjçahJ. 26.12.2016 m‹W mªj jåeg® tH¡F érhuiz¡F tunt©oa ãiyæš mªj érhuizæš guâjuid érhuiz¡F mD¥g¡TlhJ vd bghŒtH¡F gÂÎ brŒJ Ú¤Jiw fhtY¡F mD¥Ãndh« v‹whš rçašy. . . . . KUf‹ MŒths® òfh®jhu® guâjuid shoe fhyhš v£o cij¤J #h bgaiu brhšè £odh® v‹whš mªj r«gt« vJΫ eilbgwéšiy. eh‹ uΩ£° nghF«nghJ guâju‹ vd¡F tz¡f« brhšyéšiy v‹W tH¡F¥ gÂÎ brŒnj‹ v‹whš rçašy. F.v©.400/2016 eh‹ gÂÎ brŒj tH¡Fjh‹. mªj Kjš jftš m¿¡ifæš fhçš tªj guâju‹ k‰W« ÏUeg®fŸ mo¤jjhf¡ Tw¥g£LŸsJ. òfh®jhu® j‹id guâju‹ k£L« jh¡»ajhf T¿ajhš mtiu k£L« ifJ brŒJŸnsh«. ntW xUt® jh¡»ajhf mªj Kjš jftš m¿¡ifæš F¿¥Ãléšiy. mªj òfhç‹ ngçš Kiwahf érhç¡fkhš guâju‹ ÛJ ÏUªj nfht¤jhš mtiu k£L« ifJ brŒJ elto¡if vL¤JŸns‹ v‹whš rçašy. . . . . jhœ¤j¥g£l r_f¤Âid rh®ªj eg® v‹gjhš mt® ÛJ bghŒ tH¡F ngh£L mtuJ v®fhy¤ij gh¤nj‹ v‹whš rçašy. . . . . . . guâjuid M£nlh ãiya¤ÂèUªJ fhšeilahf miH¤J tªnjh«. mtuJ r£ilia¥ Ão¤J ÏG¤J fhtš ãiya¤Â‰F miH¤J br‹nwh« v‹whš rçašy. elªJ tU« Jhu« v‹gjhš M£nlhéš miH¤J tuéšiy. fhtš ãiya¤Âš guâjuD¡F eh§fŸ czÎ bfhL¤njh«. fhtš ãiya¤Âš guâju‹ ÁWÚ® fê¡f¡Tl mDk¡féšiy mtuJ if fhšfis f£o mt® ÁWÚ® fê¤jj‰F« mo¤jh®fŸ v‹whš rçašy.”
One Tamilazhagan, then Police Constable of Pallikonda Police Station, was examined as RW2, who was not the Respondent herein. In his cross-examination he admitted that he saw the assault on the Complainant made by the Respondents in the police station. A perusal of the cross-examination of RW1 & RW2 it proves the violation of human rights of the Complainant and custodial torture inflicted on him and the stand taken by the Respondents regarding with the registration of the case and also the arrest of the accused is not acceptable one and it creates suspicion in the mind of this Commission.

17. 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.

18. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and also the written arguments filed by both the parties, this Commission is of the considered view that the allegation against the Respondents that the Respondents abused the Complainant in filthy language and detained in the police station in naked manner and also assaulted him. As I already said, the registration of case and arrest of the Complainant was also creates suspicion in the mind of this Commission. Therefore, a combined reading of the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and also the arguments of both the parties, this Commission has categorically hold that the action on the part of the Respondents amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant and they had failed to prove their innocence that they had performed their duty in accordance with law and the 1st Respondent did not come forward to enter into the witness box and subjected to cross-examination to disprove the allegations leveled against him in the complaint. Therefore, this Commission holds that the Respondents had violated the human rights of the Complainant. 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.1,00,000/- 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.50,000/- each from the Respondents 1 & 2 as compensation and to initiate departmental action 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Complainant Thiru E.Baranidharan, S/o T.M.Ekambaram, No.12, 1st Cross Street, Camaranpet, Pallikonda, Anaicut Taluk, Vellore District, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.50,000/- each from the Respondents 1 to 2 as per the Rules.
(ii) This Commission also recommends to initiate disciplinary action against the Respondents as per the Rules.
MEMBER

Complainant Side Witness :
PW1 Thiru E.Baranidharan

Complainant Side Documents : – Nil –

Respondents Side Witnesses :

RW1 Tmt.D.Kavitha
RW2 Thiru K.Tamilazhagan

Respondents Side Documents :

Ex.R1 21.12.2016 Copy of FIR No.400/2016 of Pallikonda Police Station.
Ex.R2 16.02.2016 Copy of complaint given by one Arumugam, Pallikonda.
Ex.R3 —- Copies of remand order in Cr.No.355/2016 dt.23.12.2016,
FIR No.355/2016 dt.19.11.2016, complaint of one
R.Rajesh of Vellore dt.19.11.2016, remand order in
Cr.No.400/2016 dt.23.12.2016, FIR No.400/2016 dt.
21.12.2016 and the statement of one Mohan.

MEMBER
To

The Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009.

Copy to

(1)Thiru E.Baranidharan, S/o T.M.Ekambaram, No.12, 1st Cross Street, Camaranpet, Pallikonda, Anaicut Tk., Vellore Dt. – 635809.

(2)Thiru Murugan, the then Inspector of Police, Pallikonda Police Station, Vellore District.
(3)Tmt.Kavitha, now working as Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mmk 06.05.2025
//BY ORDER//
Assistant Registrar