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’s mother Tmt.L.Sumathra Devi, W/o Lingasamy (Late), No.1/16, Muthu Nagar, Kotapulipalayam Road, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu may

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’s mother Tmt.L.Sumathra Devi, W/o Lingasamy (Late), No.1/16, Muthu Nagar, Kotapulipalayam Road, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu may

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

Thursday, the 18th day of December 2025

SHRC Case No.5310/22/3 of 2021

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

Thiru L.Muruganantham (Died) … Complainant

(Tmt.Sumathra Devi, the mother of the Complainant, is appointed as Legal Representative of the deceased Complainant Thiru L.Muruganantham as per the order of this Commission dated 19.09.2025)

-Vs-

(1)Thiru P.Gopinath, the then Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District.
(2)Thiru R.Jayaram, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharapuram Sub-Division, Tiruppur District.
… Respondents

ORDER

Gist of the complaint allegations is as follows:-
The Complainant was residing at Dharapuram in Tiruppur District. He is the person with Becker Muscular Dystrophy a life threatening progressively worsening disease which is also progressively worsening life threatening, accessed as 70 percent during 2013 and further he have Autism Spectrum Disorder and he have psychological conditions like panic disorder, Anxiety, OCD. The specific complaint against the 1st Respondent is that the Complainant lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur on 12.03.2020 which was forwarded to the 1st Respondent for enquiry and he went to Dharapuram police station on 21.03.2020 at about 06.00 PM. At that time the 1st Respondent threatened him to remand him based on the complaint allegedly given by one Thiru Dhandapani, who is the relative of the Complainant, stating that the Complainant was arranging for persons in several places to murder him. But the Complainant stated to the 1st Respondent that he is a person with Becker Muscular Dystrophy a life threatening progressively worsening disease which is also progressively worsening life threatening and his mother is not having hearing ability and she is having nervous disorder, headache, serious knee joint pain, serious hip and back pain and mental illness and in this condition they were not even able to organize to do even their daily work to survive and so the complaint given by the said Thiru Dhandapani against them is a false one. Even then the 1st Respondent threatened that the Complainant and his mother should transfer all the properties of them to Thiru Dhandapani or otherwise they will not be in a position to live the life and he was warned by other polices in ununiform for sending his last RTI in English and further RTI appeal in English within short time without giving breathing time to them and he acted in favour of Thiru Dhandapani. His father was already murdered by the said Thiru Dhandapani by motive and already the Complainant had given a complaint before this Commission against one Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station and the same was taken on file in SHRC No.2745/2020 and to support the said Sub-Inspector of Police, the 1st Respondent harassed and threatened the Complainant and hence he prayed to take appropriate action against the 1st Respondent and for no taking action against the 1st Respondent, he implicated the 2nd Respondent in this case.

2. This Commission sought report from the Inspector General of Police, West Zone, Coimbatore and the said officer appointed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range as enquiry officer and after the enquiry he submitted the enquiry report stating that due to the Complainant is a differently abled person, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, went to the house of the Complainant and obtained a letter from him and he informed that he is a practicing Advocate in Dharapuram up to 2012 and thereafter he is appearing for his personal cases before the courts and the enquiry officer enquired the opposite parties including the 1st Respondent Inspector of police and it was concluded in the report that the Complainant filed a case earlier before this Commission and received Rs.5,25,000/- as compensation and he expressed his apprehension that the police officials participated in the school function of Thiru Dhandapani and the same was not satisfaction to him and at present there is no human rights violation and if anything happened he will call the Deputy Inspector General of Police by phone and hence the enquiry officer is of the opinion that no further action is required in this matter and the same may be filed.
3. After perusing the report of the Inspector of General of Police, West Zone, Coimbatore and satisfaction with the report, the another Hon’ble Member of this Commission closed this complaint vide order dated 08.05.2023 as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 as no human rights violation made out in this complaint.

4. Challenging that order the Complainant has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras by way of filing writ petition in W.P.No.24638/2023 and the Hon’ble High Court set aside the order of the Commission dated 08.05.2023 and the matter is remanded to this Commission for fresh disposal after hearing the petitioner vide its order dated 05.09.2023 and the case was transferred to this Bench for disposal. This Commission issued summons to both the parties and they were appeared before this Commission.

5. The defence of the Respondents as could be gathered from the separate counter statements filed by the 1st & 2nd Respondents is as follows:-
The Respondents denied all the allegations contained in the complaint except those that are all specifically admitted herein. The first respondent submits that there was an existing Civil Dispute between the complainant herein and one Dhandapani, who is his nephew for quite long time. Both parties used to give frivolous petitions each other before the Dharapuram Police Station and police used to enquire the said issues and it is going endless process by the attitude of the complainant. The first respondent denied the averments in Para 2 of the complaint. Since on the alleged date the complainant not appeared for his petition’s enquiry, this respondent had no occasion to meet the complainant at any point of time. The allegations leveled by the complainant are frivolous and after thought since he aimed this respondent for not yielding his malafide intention. The complainant had been arrested by the Sub Inspector of police, Dharapuram Police Station, in Crime No.108/2020 for an offence u/s.323, 294(b) and 506(2) of IPC based on complaint of one Selvakumar. Therefore, he made several representations to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur to take action against the Sub Inspector of Police, who arrested him vide petition dated 12.03.2020. The said petition was forwarded to this respondent through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharapuram. The complainant made multiple representations to take disciplinary action against the Sub Inspector of Police who arrested him. All the above representations were registered as current paper as above said which has been duly forwarded to the DSP, Dharapuram and in turn he forwarded to this respondent for an enquiry. Accordingly, this respondent summoned the complainant for enquiry. Though the complainant very well present at Dharapuram, he was not turned to Police Station and also not co-operated for the enquiry. Since the complainant willfully evaded the enquiry, this respondent enquired the other police persons who presented at the time of arrest and based on their version he came to the conclusion that the complainant had not been harassed and he was duly arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police in accordance with the procedures of law. He submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharapuram. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur also closed the said petition. He has filed complaint before this Hon’ble Commission in SHRC No.2745 of 2020 against the Sub Inspector of Police, who arrested him and after fair enquiry he got remedy also before this Commission. Even after the complainant got his remedy before this Hon’ble Commission for the same cause, as an after-thought, he has filed this present petition before this Hon’ble Commission. In fact, the respondent herein duly addressed the representation made by the complainant and after proper enquiry it was closed. Since the complainant could not achieve whatever he thinks illegally in his favour, made this complaint falsely alleged against the respondents for serving their official duty in accordance with law. As per the direction of this Hon’ble Commission the Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore taken up the case and handed over to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Zone, for enquiry and thereafter the Director General of Police, enquired all parties and came to the conclusion and submitted the report stating that the complainant had not co-operated for the enquiry and no harassment in whatsoever manner caused to the complainant. All the allegations contained in paragraph 2 to 14 are absurd and frivolous. In order to maintain the present complaint, he has made concocted story up to his imagination. In order to achieve his malafide intention to cover up his personal Civil Dispute he is advising the process by filing this complaint and he is using this Hon’ble Commission as platform to threaten the police Officers in order to achieve his goal to get remedy for his personal Civil Dispute. In so far as the information sought by the complainant under the Right to Information Act concerned it was dealt by the officer in charge of the police station and this respondent nothing to do with this proceedings. There is no specific allegation of Human Rights Violation in his entire complaint. This respondent has discharged his duties in good faith and nothing can be attributed to this respondent for discharging his duties. Therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.
The 2nd Respondent has stated in his counter statement that the Complainant made multiple representations to take disciplinary action against the Sub-Inspector of Police, who arrested him Cr.No.108/2020. Except to forward such representations, this Respondent had no direct role with the Complainant in any manner. He had not directly met the Complainant on any occasion. Even in the complaint there was no specific allegation against him for committing any kind of human rights violation against him. The Inspector of Police had enquired the forwarded current papers and submitted report and based on that report the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District has closed the complaint. The Complainant has filed a complaint before this Commission in SHRC No.2745/2020 against the Sub-Inspector of Police, who arrested him in Cr.No.108/2020 and after fair enquiry he got remedy before this Commission. But the same cause, as an after-thought, he has filed this present complaint before this Commission. Hence, the 2nd Respondent prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. 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’s mother Tmt.Sumathra Devi is
entitled to?

7. Point No.1 :- This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Respondents that the Complainant lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur on 12.03.2020 which was forwarded to the 1st Respondent for enquiry and he went to Dharapuram police station on 21.03.2020 at about 06.00 PM. At that time the 1st Respondent threatened him to remand him based on the complaint allegedly given by one Thiru Dhandapani, who is the relative of the Complainant, stating that the Complainant was arranging for persons in several places to murder him. But the Complainant stated to the 1st Respondent he is a person with Becker Muscular Dystrophy a life threatening progressively worsening disease which is also progressively worsening life threatening and his mother is not having hearing ability and she is having nervous disorder, headache, serious knee joint pain, serious hip and back pain and mental illness and in this condition they were not even able to organize to do even their daily work to survive and so the complaint given by the said Thiru Dhandapani against them is a false one. Even then the 1st Respondent threatened that the Complainant and his mother should transfer all the properties of them to Thiru Dhandapani or otherwise they will not be in a position to live the life and he was warned by other polices in ununiform for sending his last RTI in English and further RTI appeal in English within short time without giving breathing time to them and he acted in favour of Thiru Dhandapani. His father was already murdered by the said Thiru Dhandapani by motive and already the Complainant had given a complaint before this Commission against one Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharapuram PS and the same was taken on file in SHRC No.2745/2020 and to support the said Sub-Inspector of Police, the 1st Respondent harassed and threatened the Complainant and hence he prayed to take appropriate action against the 1st Respondent and for no taking action against the 1st Respondent, he implicated the 2nd Respondent in this case. Since the complainant could not achieve whatever he thinks illegally in his favour, made this complaint falsely alleged against the respondents for serving their official duty in accordance with law. As per the direction of this Hon’ble Commission the Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore taken up the case and handed over to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Zone, for enquiry and thereafter the Director General of Police, enquired all parties and came to the conclusion and submitted the report stating that the complainant had not co-operated for the enquiry and no harassment in whatsoever manner caused to the complainant. All the allegations contained in paragraph 2 to 14 are absurd and frivolous. In order to maintain the present complaint, he has made concocted story up to his imagination. In order to achieve his malafide intention to cover up his personal Civil Dispute he is advising the process by filing this complaint and he is using this Hon’ble Commission as platform to threaten the police Officers in order to achieve his goal to get remedy for his personal Civil Dispute. In so far as the information sought by the complainant under the Right to Information Act concerned it was dealt by the officer in charge of the police station and this respondent nothing to do with this proceedings. There is no specific allegation of Human Rights Violation in his entire complaint. This respondent has discharged his duties in good faith and nothing can be attributed to this respondent for discharging his duties. Therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

8. Per contra, the case of the 1st Respondent is that he denied the averments in Para 2 of the complaint. Since on the alleged date the complainant not appeared for his petition’s enquiry, this respondent had no occasion to meet the complainant at any point of time. The allegations leveled by the complainant are frivolous and after thought since he aimed this respondent for not yielding his malafide intention. He made several representations to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur to take action against the Sub Inspector of Police, who arrested him vide petition dated 12.03.2020. The said petition was forwarded to this respondent through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharapuram. Accordingly, this respondent summoned the complainant for enquiry. Though the complainant very well present at Dharapuram, he was not turned to Police Station and also not co-operated for the enquiry. Since the complainant willfully evaded the enquiry, this respondent enquired the other police persons who presented at the time of arrest and based on their version he came to the conclusion that the complainant had not been harassed and he was duly arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police in accordance with the procedures of law. He submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharapuram. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur also closed the said petition.

9. The case of the 2nd Respondent is that the Complainant made multiple representations to take disciplinary action against the Sub-Inspector of Police, who arrested him in Cr.No.108/2020. Except to forward such representations, this Respondent had no direct role with the Complainant in any manner. He had not directly met the Complainant on any occasion. Even in the complaint there was no specific allegation against him for committing any kind of human rights violation against him. The Inspector of Police had enquired the forwarded current papers and submitted report and based on that report the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District has closed the complaint. The Complainant has filed a complaint before this Commission in SHRC No.2745/2020 against the Sub-Inspector of Police, who arrested him in Cr.No.108/2020 and after fair enquiry he got remedy before this Commission. But the same cause, as an after-thought, he has filed this present complaint before this Commission. Hence, the 2nd Respondent prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10. In order to prove his case, the Complainant examined himself as PW1 and filed proof affidavit and reiterated the averments contained in the complaint. He also produced 42 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to P42.

11. Per contra, the Respondents No.1 & 2 examined themselves as RW1 & RW2 respectively and no document was filed on their side.

12. Therefore, it is the duty of this Commission whether the allegation against the Respondents is proved or not and whether the Respondents had violated the human rights of the Complainant or not to be decided.
13. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1. In his proof affidavit he reiterated the same averments made in his complaint. He also filed 42 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to P42. Ex.P6 is the complaint of the Complainant addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur dated 24.03.2020. In this complaint he had mentioned the threatening and harassment of the 1st Respondent on 21.03.2020 at 06.00 PM. Ex.P7 is the enquiry report dated 14.05.2020 on the complaint given by the Complainant against the Sub-Inspector of Police, who arrested him in Cr.No.108/2020.

14. During the cross-examination, PW1 replied that his complaint was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Dharapuram. A suggestion put forth by the 1st Respondent’s counsel that he did not appear for enquiry before the 1st Respondent even though the 1st Respondent issued summons to him. But it was denied by PW1 and PW1 categorically replied that he was not enquired by the 1st Respondent at any point of time and the decision was not also informed to him and all other suggestions were denied by PW1. Except that no useful information was gathered in favour of the 1st Respondent during the cross-examination of PW1.

15. The 1st Respondent filed a proof affidavit and examined as RW1. In his proof affidavit, he reiterated the same averments made in his counter statement. RW1 did not file any documents on his side. During the cross-examination RW1 admitted that on the date of 21.03.2020 he was worked as Inspector of Police in Dharapuram Police Station. At that time the police station was functioned at All Women Police Station, Dharapuram. RW1 admitted that at that time CCTV camera was fixed in the All Women Police Station, Dharapuram. However, it was not in function. RW1 further admitted that paragraph 6 of his proof affidavit he has stated that he issued summons to PW1 for enquiry. But he did not submit any documents to prove such averments. Further RW1 replied that he called the Complainant by phone and through the policemen in person, but it was not mentioned in his proof affidavit. RW1 admitted that he knows how to summon a person for enquiry to the police station. But contradictory to that in his counter statement filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.24638/2023 in Ex.P26 he has mentioned that the Complainant has not co-operated to the enquiry and he went out without giving any statement. RW1 replied for that question that those were typographical error.

16. The admission of RW1 during his cross-examination is as follows:-
“21.03.2020 m‹W eh‹ jhuhòu« fhtšãiya MŒthsuhf¥ gâah‰¿nd‹ v‹whš rçjh‹. v§fŸ jhuhòu« fhtš ãiya« Ïo¤J¡ f£l¥g£l fhuz¤jhš kfë® fhtš ãiya¤Âš brašg£L tªjJ. mªj mid¤J kfë® fhtš ãiya¤Âš f©fhâ¥ò nfkuh¡fŸ bghU¤j¥g£ld v‹whš rçjh‹. m¥bghGJ mJ braèš Ïšiy.
ã%gz th¡F_y« g¤Â 6š eh‹ kDjhuU¡F érhuiz¡fhf miH¥ghiz mD¥Ãnd‹ v‹W brhšèæU¥gš mj‰fhd Mtz§fŸ rk®¥Ã¡féšiy v‹whš rçjh‹. mªj érhuiz¡fhd miH¥ig mtU¡F eh‹ bjhiyngÁæY« fhty®fŸ _y« neçY« bjçé¡f¥g£lJ. mJ F¿¤J eh‹ ã%gz th¡F_y¤Âš F¿¥Ãléšiy v‹whš rçjh‹.
xU egiu fhtšJiw érhuiz¡F miH¡f nt©L« v‹whš mtU¡F miH¥ghiz bfhL¤Jjh‹ érhç¡f nt©L« v‹w éÂKiwfŸ F¿¤J bjçÍkh v‹whš bjçÍ«.
krhM26 kh©òäF ca®ÚÂk‹w ÚÂ¥nguhiz v‹.24638/2023 tH¡»š eh‹ jh¡fš brŒj gÂYiu g¤Â 6 k‰W« g¤Â 10š kDjhuiu érhuiz¡F miH¤J mt® fhtš ãiya« tuéšiy v‹W«, g¤Â 10š érhuiz¡F x¤JiH¡fhkš mt® v›éj th¡F_yK« bfhL¡fhkš br‹Wé£lh® v‹W« Ku©ghlhf cŸsJ v‹whš mJ j£l¢R¥ ÃiHahf ÏU¡fyh«. Mnj T‰iw eh‹ Ϫj Miza tH¡»Y« krhM21, 3« g¤Â ÏWÂæš F¿¥Ãl¥g£LŸsJ v‹whš m›thWjh‹ cŸsJ.”
17. The 2nd Respondent filed proof affidavit and examined as RW2. In his proof affidavit he reiterated the same averments made in his counter statement. RW2 has also not filed any document on his side. During the cross-examination RW2 admitted that he was the then DSP of Dharapuram Sub-Division and he aware of the complaint in Ex.P6 and he admitted that the enquiry report was of the 1st Respondent and he denied that he did not appoint any enquiry officer and he asked only explanation from him. Except that no useful information was gathered in favour of the Complainant that RW2 also violated the human rights of the Complainant.

18. It is the case of the Complainant that he is a differently abled person and having physical and mental illness and he was harassed in the police station by the 1st Respondent when he went to Dharapuram Police Station on 21.03.2020. So, he sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District against the 1st Respondent and the same was marked as Ex.P6 and no action was taken on his complaint and hence he sent this complaint before this Commission for taking appropriate action against the 1st Respondent. A specific allegation against the 1st Respondent is that he threatened the Complainant to execute a sale deed of his property to his relative Thiru Dhandapani or otherwise he will foist a false case against him. Though the 1st Respondent knowing fully that the Complainant is a differently abled person, he was not followed the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. To prove the case of the Complainant he examined himself as PW1 and marked 42 documents.

19. Both the Respondents examined themselves as RW1 & RW2, but no document was marked on their side. The 1st Respondent submitted in his counter statement that he did not see the Complainant at anywhere and he did not come forward to attend the enquiry. But during the cross-examination, RW1 deposed a contradictory statement that the Complainant did not co-operate with him for enquiry. Moreover, relating to a question about CCTV recording in All Women Police Station, Dharapuram in which Dharapuram police station was functioning at the relevant point of time, RW1 replied that CCTV was not functioning. RW1 also admitted during the cross-examination that he did not file any proof to show that he issued summons to the Complainant to appear for the enquiry. Moreover, the Complainant was not enquired by any police officer for his complaint and the Complainant is said to be a practicing Advocate with physical and mental illness. So, it is proved that without enquiring the Complainant, the 1st Respondent conducted an enquiry and sent a report to the Superintendent of Police and the said officer closed the complaint of the Complainant on the basis of the report submitted by RW1.

20. The Complainant himself cross-examined the witnesses in this case as party in person and unfortunately when the date was posted for the argument, well before he was set to be murdered by some persons. Hence his mother filed a legal heir certificate and death certificate and represented his son in this case. The main allegation of the Complainant is that the 1st Respondent compelled the Complainant to withdraw the complaint against the Sub-Inspector of Police, who arrested him in Cr.No.108/2020 and threatened with dire consequences that if the Complainant not withdrawing the complaint, he did not able to live the life. Further, the 1st Respondent threatened the Complainant that Complainant and his mother should transfer all the properties of them to Thiru Dhandapani or otherwise they will not be in a position to live the life. So, this specific allegation was not specifically denied by the 1st Respondent either in his counter statement or in his proof affidavit and he has not put even a suggestion to PW1 during his cross-examination.

21. During the arguments, the Complainant pointed out a citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.Nambi Narayanan vs Siby Mathews & Others Etc. on 14.09.2018 held as follows:-
“32. There has been some argument that there has been no complaint with regard to custodial torture. When such an argument is advanced, the concept of torture is viewed from a narrow perspective. What really matters is what has been stated in D.K.Basu v. State of W.B. The Court in the said case, while dealing with the aspect of torture, held:- “10. ‘Torture’ has not been defined in the Constitution or in other penal laws. ‘Torture’ of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the ‘strong’ over the ‘weak’ by suffering. The word torture today has become synonymous with the darker side of human civilization. ‘Torture’ is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone, paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself.”

22. The Complainant also argued that the Respondents are violated the Section 92(e) of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. Hence the Respondents are responsible for the violation of his Human Rights and so they are liable to pay compensation and to face the departmental action against them.

23. From the available records and the documents and also the evidence of PW1, RW1 & RW2 and the arguments put forth on both sides, this Commission is of the considered view that it is a fit case of human rights violation on the part of the 1st Respondent that he did not know how to deal the persons who is suffering from disabilities. It is also proved by the evidence of PW1 and through documentary evidence that the Complainant was subjected to harassment and threatening in the hands of the 1st Respondent on 21.03.2020 as stated by him and no contra evidence put forth by the 1st Respondent. The complaint against the 2nd Respondent is concerned, there are no averments or allegations made against the 2nd Respondent in the complaint by the Complainant in specific manner and no case is made out against the 2nd Respondent. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the 1st Respondent had violated the human rights of the Complainant and the 2nd Respondent had not violated any of the human rights of the Complainant and hence the 1st Respondent alone is liable to pay compensation to the Complainant’s mother and the complaint against the 2nd Respondent is liable to be dismissed. This Point is answered accordingly.

24. Point No.2: – While answering the Point No.1 this Commission has held that the 1st Respondent alone 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. So, this Commission is of the considered view that the Complainant’s mother is entitled to receive compensation for the violation of human rights of her son from the 1st Respondent and fixing of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant’s mother would be fair and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence this Commission holds that the Complainant’s mother is entitled to get Rs.3,00,000/- from the 1st Respondent as compensation and to initiate departmental action against the 1st Respondent. The complaint against the 2nd Respondent is dismissed. This Point is answered accordingly.

25. 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’s mother Tmt.L.Sumathra Devi, W/o Lingasamy (Late), No.1/16, Muthu Nagar, Kotapulipalayam Road, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.3,00,000/- from the 1st Respondent as per the Rules. The complaint against the 2nd Respondent is dismissed.
(ii) This Commission also recommends to initiate disciplinary action against the 1st Respondent as per the Rules.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Complainant Side Witnesses :
PW1 Thiru L.Muruganantham

Complainant Side Documents :

Ex.P1 01.07.2011 Copy of Genetic Analysis Report.

Ex.P2 —- Copy of Differently abled certificate and passbook.

Ex.P3 10.05.2019 Copy of clinical psychologist report.

Ex.P4 —- Copy of Diagnostic Assessment Report.

Ex.P5 —- Copy of Differently abled passbook.

Ex.P6 24.03.2020 Copy of complaint addressed to the Superintendent of
Police, Tiruppur.

Ex.P7 14.05.2020 Copy of enquiry report.

Ex.P8 04.11.2020 Copy of reply under RTI Act.

Ex.P9 29.11.2022 Copy of order in W.P.No.22431 and 22527 of 2021.

Ex.P10 29.02.2020 Copy of arrest/court surrender form.

Ex.P11 27.08.2021 Copy of order in SHRC No.2745/2020.

Ex.P12 30.04.2020 Copy of enquiry report.

Ex.P13 —- Copy of hospital records.

Ex.P14 —- Copy of Differently abled passbook.

Ex.P15 —- Copy of medical article.

Ex.P16 —- Copy of medical article.

Ex.P17 —- Copy of research paper.

Ex.P18 —- Copy of research paper.

Ex.P19 15.12.2022 Copy of statement of the Complainant.

Ex.P20 —- Copy of index to typed set of papers.

Ex.P21 08.05.2023 Copy of order in SHRC No.5310/22/3/2021.
Ex.P22 —- Copy of case details in Crl.O.P.19291/2021.

Ex.P23 —- Copy of case details in Crl.RC.26/2009.

Ex.P24 —- Copy of photographs.

Ex.P25 13.07.2023 Copy of affidavit in W.P.No. of 2023.

Ex.P26 04.09.2023 Copy of counter affidavit in W.P.No.24638 of 2023.

Ex.P27 —- Copy of medical article.

Ex.P28 —- Copy of medical article.

Ex.P29 —- Copy of details of legal and policy advocacy work.

Ex.P30 —- Copy of medical article.

Ex.P31 01.02.2016 Copy of letter addressed to the Principal, Govt. Law
College, Coimbatore.

Ex.P32 —- Copy of Annexure.

Ex.P33 18.02.2021 Copy of order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and
Sub-Collector, Dharapuram.

Ex.P34 16.09.2021 Copy of complaint sent to this Commission by the
Complainant.

Ex.P35 30.11.2020 Copy of complaint addressed to the District Collector,
Tiruppur District by Thiru R.Dhandapani.

Ex.P36 04.10.2021 Copy of complaint sent to this Commission by the
Complainant.

Ex.P37 15.12.2020 Copy of letter addressed to the Superintendent of
Police, Tiruppur District.

Ex.P38 —- Copy of medical article.

Ex.P39 June 2020 Copy of status affidavit filed in W.P.No.7511 of 2020.
Ex.P40 24.12.2020 Copy of medical prescription.

Ex.P41 02.03.2021 Copy of medical prescription.

Ex.P42 02.10.2022 Copy of news article.

Respondents Side Witnesses :

RW1 Thiru P.Gopinath

RW2 Thiru R.Jayaram

Respondents Side Documents : – Nil –
Sd/-
MEMBER

To

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

Copy to

(1) Tmt.L.Sumathra Devi, W/o Lingasamy(Late), No.1/16, Muthu Nagar, Kotapulipalayam Road, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District-638657.
(2) Thiru P.Gopinath, Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station, Theni District.
(3)Thiru R.Jayaram, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Record Bureau, Madurai City.

Mmk 18.12.2025
//BY ORDER//
Assistant Registrar