Ramkumar case stayed

W.P.No. 25470 of 2021

1) R.Anbalagan,
S/o Rathinam,
No 100, Muruga Bhavanam
Adinath Garden, Sakthivel Main Road,
Near Puthu Koil, Puzhal, Chennai-66 … Petitioner

Vs

1) The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission,
143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road,
Raja Anmamalaipuram, Chennai-28.

2) R. Paramasivan,
S/o Ramasamy,
228, Dr.Ambedkar Street,
T.Meenakshipuram, Panpozhi Post,
Shenkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District. …… Respondents

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY R.ANBALAGAN
I, R. Anbalagan, Son of Rathinam, Hindu, aged about 62 years residing at No 100, Muruga Bhavanam, Adinath Garden, Sakthivel Main Road, Near Puthu Koil, Puzhal, Chennai-66 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-
1. I state that I have served as Superintendent, Central Prison-II, Puzhal from 8.2.2016 to 31.10.2016 and retired on superannuation on 31.10.2016. Therefore, I am fully acquainted with the facts of the case.
2. I State that this Writ Petition is filed to quash Suo Motu Case No 6977 + 7666 +7839/2016/C2 pending before the 1st Respondent State Human Rights Commission and stay all further proceedings as the proceedings is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission and expressly barred under Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
3. I state that before delving into the facts of the case the details of the Respondents in this case are as follows: The 1st Petitioner is the Superintendent of Prisons of Central Prison-II,Puzhal on the date of alleged occurrence on 18.9.2016. The 1st Petitioner served at Central Prison-II, Puzhal from 8.2.2016 to 31.10.2016 and retired on superannuation on 31.10.2016. The 1st Petitioner was on weekly off on 18.9.2016 being Sunday holiday and therefore, he was aware of the incident after information from the Prison
4. I state that the facts of the case is that P.Ramkumar Son of Paramasivam whom residing at Door No 228, Ambedkar Street, Meenakshipuram, Panpozhi Post, Shenkottai, Tirunelveli District concerned in F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station, concerned in Crime No. 629/2016, U/S 302 of Indian Penal Code was admitted in Central Prison-II, Puzhal as Remand Prisoner 00400 on 4.7.2016 based on the Remand Warrant issued by the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Chennai.
5. I state that the above remand prisoner who was involved in a heinous offence of murdering a girl named Swathi out of one side love affair and the incident widely published in News Papers and therefore interning him along with other prisoners would cause problems as other prisoners may assault the above prisoner and in case murder him also. Therefore, he was interned in the Dispensary Block of High Security Block as a segregation measure as per prison rules along with other six prisoners.
6. I state that Tmt.Pushpam wife of 2nd Respondent herein filed a Crl.O.P No 19000 of 2016 before this Hon’ble Court and sought for a direction to withdraw the case in Crime No. 629 of 2016 from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nungmabakkam Saragam and entrust the same to the Additional Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Rajaji Bahavan, Chennai, an independent agency , preferably CBI to conduct re-investigation in respect of Crime No. 629 of 2016 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nungmabakkam Saragam. The above Petition filed by Tmt.Pushpam wife of the considered by this Hon’ble Court in length and ordered that this Court does not find any infirmity in the investigation being conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station warranting transfer of the case to Central Bureau of Investigation and accordingly the Crl.O.P No.19000 of 2006 was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court in order dated 2.9.2016.
7. I state that I was on weekly off on 18.9.2016 and all Officers Superintendent of Prisons, Additional Superintendent and Jailor would be on off duty except to make special rounds to the Prison. P.Ramkumar son of Paramasivam interned at Dispensary Block was guarded by Thiru.Petchimuthu, Grade I Warder on 18.9.2016. It has been stated by him that Ramkumar son of Paramasivam with his permission came outside the Block to take water kept outside and on this pretext at about 16.40 hours he broke open the switch box which was easily accessible removed the wire in the switch box available near the water pot and bite the wire with his tooth and put the entire switch box in his chest having number of points and thereby sustained severe electric shock. Thiru.Petchimuthu, Grade I Warder on seeing the above incident used the lathi in his hand tried to save him by detaching his hand from the wire and diffused the power supply. Though he was detached from the electrical wire, he fell unconsciously. As the incident took within fraction of seconds, Thiru.Petchimuthu, Grade I Warder informed the same by Walkie Talkie to all concerned.
8. I state that I was on weekly off on 18.9.2016 on the date of alleged incident. It is submitted that on 18.9.2016, Thiru. A.Rajendran, Deputy Jailor who officiated as Jailor on 18.9.2016. Therefore, on 18.9.2016 making security arrangements and posting of guarding staff is the duty attached to the Deputy Jailor who officiated as Jailor as per rules. I state that even though I was on weekly off on 18.9.2016 on hearing the information, I came inside the prison at 16.48 hours and enquired about the incident. I state that immediately on hearing the above incident Dr. Naveen Kumar, Assistant Surgeon attached to the Prison Hospital rushed to the accident spot to provide first aid to the prisoner and provided the required first aid. After providing the required first aid, Dr. Naveen Kumar, Assistant Surgeon referred the prisoner for further management at Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai-14. The above stated prisoner was sent by 108 Ambulance stationed in the Prison accompanied by Thiru.Pitchandi, Assistant Jailor, Thiru.Ramraj, Grade I Warder, Thiru.Petchimuthu, Grade I Warder, Thiru. Arunkumar, Grade II Warder, Thiru.Purushothaman, Male Nursing Assistant and Dr. Naveen Kumar, Assistant Surgeon.
9. I state that on arrival to the Government Royapettah Hospital on examination by the Casualty Medical Officer of Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai-14 declared that the above stated prisoner as brought dead at 17.45 hours and this information was conveyed to the prison at 19.35 hours on 18.9.2016. I state that consequent on the above information, I instructed the Jailor to prefer a complaint with the M-3, Puzhal Police Station and based on which the Jailor in his letter No 00400/R4/2016, dated, 18.9.2016 preferred a complaint with the M-3 Puzhal Police Station to register a complaint on the death of the above prisoner and to enquire the same. The Inspector of Police, M-3, Police Station registered a complaint in Crime No.1064, dated, 18.9.2016 under Section 176 (1-A) of Criminal Procedure Code and the FIR transmitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur for further necessary action. It is submitted that in the meantime, I have sent a separate report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Letter No 00400/R4/2016, dated, 18.9.2016 to order for further enquiry and arrange to conduct post mortem on the above prisoner. The matter was also reported to the State Government, National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commission in Wireless/Fax Message No 00400/R4/2016, dated, 18.9.2016.
10. I state that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur authorized the Judicial Magistrate No -2, Thiruvallur to conduct enquiry on the death of the above prisoner and to conduct the inquest on the death of the above prisoner. The Post Mortem of the above prisoner could not be conducted in view of the W.P No 32885 of 2016 and WMP No’s 28426 and 28427 of 2016 filed before this Hon’ble Court by the 2nd Respondent seeking for CBI enquiry and sought the presence of a private Doctor on behalf of the Petitioner and this Hon’ble Court in its order, dated 19.9.2016 ordered for a team of Doctors to conduct the Post Mortem by Dr.S.Selvakumar, Professor, Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai, Dr.Manikandaraja, Assistant Professor, Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai, Dr.Vinod, Assistant Professor, Kilpauk Medical College, OD at Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai, and Dr.Balasubramanian, Professor, Forensic Medicine, Stanley Hospital to conduct the post mortem on the deceased prisoner.
11. I state that subsequent to that the 2nd Respondent preferred a W.A No 1181 of 2016 before this Hon’ble Court against the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge. This Hon’ble Court in its order dated, 22.9.2016 in W.A No 1181 of 2016 directed the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi to depute a Forensic Expert, well experienced in conducting post mortem, to join the team of four member medical team to conduct post mortem on the body of the deceased Ramkumar, which now lies in the mortuary of Government Royapettah Hospital. The four Government Surgeons and AIIMS Surgeon as a team shall conduct post mortem on the body of the deceased Ramkumar on 23.9.2016 or any other day, in any event on or before 27.9.2016.
12. I state that subsequently the 2nd Respondent herein preferred a Memo in W.A No 1181 of 2016 seeking the to grant leave to prefer Appeal against the order, dated, 22.9.2016 as to grant one week time and in the meantime body may be preserved in cold storage at Rajiv Gandhi Government Medical College Hospital till that time the order of the Hon’ble Court may be kept in abeyance. This Hon’ble Court considered the memo filed by the 2nd Respondent herein and ordered for the postponement of the post mortem on the body of deceased Ramkumar till 30.9.2016. Till such time, the body of deceased Ramkumar shall be preserved in the mortuary of Royapettah Hospital.
13. I state that based on the orders of the orders of this Hon’ble Court the
Post Mortem on the body of the deceased prisoner Ramkumar was conducted on 1.10.2016 by a 5 member team of Doctors including a Doctor from AIIMS, New Delhi. The Judicial Magistrate No 2, Thiruvallur was present at the time of post mortem as she was nominated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur to conduct enquiry on the death of prisoner Ramkumar. After post mortem several reports such as Toxicology Report, Histo Pathological Report and Forensic Sciences Report have been perused and the team of 5 Doctors including an Expert from AIIMS, New Delhi came to the unanimous final opinion that “the deceased would appear to have died due to electrocution”. They have submitted the final report on 14.12.2016.
14. I state that the Learned Judicial Magistrate No II, Thiruvallur conducted an enquiry as required under Section 176(1-A) of Criminal Procedure Code and after enquiring all concerned, the prisoners interned along with the deceased prisoner Ramkumar, Prison Doctor Dr.Naveen Kumar and on the basis of the evidences collected and the post mortem report came to the conclusion that “the deceased Ramkumar would have died due to Electrocution which is suicidal in nature.”
15. I state that the State Government considered the report of the Judicial Magistrate No II, Thiruvallur forwarded through the Collector of Thiruvallur considered all the reports and the opinion of the Forensic Expert Dr. Sudhir. K.Gupta stated that “ There were no any other injuries found over any other part of the body suggestive of torture/assault. Death due to strangulation/assault injury of any kind is ruled out in this case” and accepted the findings of the Judicial Magistrate No II, Thiruvallur and dropped further action on the death of the Remand Prisoner Ramkumar s/o Paramasivan in Government Letter No 3967/L&O-E/2017-10 Public (Law and Order) Department, Chennai-9.
16. I state that the Central Prison-II, Puzhal has already submitted a report to the National Human Rights Commission. But however, the 2nd Respondent preferred a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi which was registered as Case/File No 691/22/13/2017 on 3.3.2017. The National Human Rights Commission thereafter conducted an independent enquiry through its investigation wing and after calling for details and after due consideration whether any Human Rights violations are exist in the complaint came to the conclusion that “there is nothing on record which suggests that the son of the complainant was falsely implicated and later murdered in Jail. The report is taken on record. The allegation leveled by the complainant could not be substantiated hence, no intervention is required and the case stands closed” in case file No 691/22/13/2017, dated, 4.5.2020.
17. I state that in view of the cognizance taken by the National Human Rights Commission and finality reached by the National Human Rights Commission, the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu should not have taken any further action and conducting any such enquiry is barred as per Section 36(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Regulation 9 of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994. Despite that the Superintendent of Police, Investigation Division, State Human Rights Commission, Chennai-28 in S.H.R.C Case No 6977/2016/HCP dated, 20.7.2018 was conducted an enquiry on the death of Remand Prisoner Ramkumar s/o Paramasivam on the basis of the News Paper Report, dated, 19.9.2016 and submitted his report to the State Human Rights Commission as there is no violation as the prisoner died of electrocution.
18. I state that all on a sudden, the Petitioners received a summon in Case No 6977 +7666+7839/2016/C2 , dated, 14.9.2020 as “suo motu cognizance taken on the basis of the news item appeared in “The Hindu” English News paper dated, 19.9.2016 regarding the suicide committed by P.Ramkumar in Puzhal Central Prison to appear on 30.9.2020. In respect of the news paper publication, dated 19.9.2016, the State Human Rights took cognizance only on 30.9.2020 after a delay of 4 years. I state that the case arising out of suo moto cognizance by the State Human Rights Commission on 14.9.2020 but the case No 6977 of 2016 which was already concluded but clubbed with this suo motu cognizance taken up by the State Human Rights Commission. I state that as per Section 36(2) (b) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is as follows:
“The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed”

19. I state that in view of the express bar provided as per the above statutory provision, the State Human Rights Commission is prohibited in conducting any inquiry in the matter. I state that in order to satisfy the limitation prescribed, the case No 6977 of 2016 which was already concluded has been taken into consideration by the State Human Rights Commission, otherwise there is no need to initiate suo motu proceedings in the matter for the News Item dated, 19.9.2016 in the year 2020 after a delay of 4 years. Therefore, the entire action was initiated with bias and prejudice with clear motive and malafides. I state that it has been decided in Ayyammal Vs The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission, Chennai in W.P (MD) No 8573 of 2020 that the Commission has no inherent power to condone the delay. Therefore, the suo motu cognizance taken by the Commission is in violation of Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Regulation 9 of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations,1994 is ultra vires.
20) I state that the State Human Rights Commission along with the News Paper publication, dated, 19.9.2016, another complaint dated, 23.9.2016 by the State President, Devendrakula Vellalar Peravai 3/335, Vellalar Street, Kodambakkadu, S.K.Garden, Nethimedu (P.O), Salem, 636002 and Petition , dated, 18.7.2018 submitted by Paramasivan father of the deceased Ramkumar 2nd Respondent herein. The news paper report alleged foul play on the death of the prisoner Ramkumar. The letter dated 23.9.2016 of State President, Devendrakula Vellalar Peravai also stated there are doubts and mystery and therefore requested to enquire in the matter. But actually there is no foul play on the death of the prisoner Ramkumar on the basis of the report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate-2, Thiruvallur and the matter concluded.
21) I state that Paramasivan father of the deceased 2nd Respondent herein questioned the very fact of arrest itself stating that his son is falsely implicated. This matter was already decided based on the orders dated, 2.9.2016 of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P No 19000 of 2016. Therefore, the 2nd Respondent would have approached the Supreme Court of India against the orders of this Hon’ble Court. The 2nd Respondent further sought for inquest report, post mortem report , video taken at the time of post mortem, sketch prepared for the scene of crime and other case records. The above stated records may be available with the Police who investigated the case, post mortem and connected records with the State Government. As retired Prison Officials we cannot provide these as these records are also not accessible to us. The 2nd Respondent should have approached the appropriate forum after making copy application and would have obtained the same, The question of providing compassionate appointment to one of his daughter and compensation are not maintainable in view of the reason that the finding of Judicial Magistrate-2, Thiruvallur was the death was suicidal in nature due to electrocution and the same accepted by the State Government. I state that the 2nd Respondent herein already submitted a representation to the National Human Rights Commission and the same was willfully suppressed by him while presenting this Petition, dated, 18.7.2018 before the State Human Rights Commission.
22) I state that in pursuant to the suo motu cognizance in the above said case, the State Human Rights Commission selectively examined Dr.Syed Abdul Kadher, Casualty Medical Officer of Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai-14 as Commission Witness No-1 , Dr.R.Selvakumar, Professor and Head of Department of Kilapuk Medical College Hospital in Medico Legal cases and Government Royapettah Hospital and Dr.S.Balasubramanian, Professor and Head of Department of Government Stanley Medical College Hospital in Medico Legal cases Hospital and Tmt. Tamil Selvi, Metropolitan Magistrate No VI, Egmore (Formerly) Judicial Magistrate No II, Thiruvallur on 15.4.2021. Dr.Venu Anand former Professor of Government Medical College Hospital, Royapettah who gave the Histo Pathological Report was examined on 18.8.2021.
23) I state that Tmt. Tamil Selvi, Metropolitan Magistrate No VI, Egmore (Formerly) Judicial Magistrate No 2, Thiruvallur was cross examined by the Counsel of the 2nd Respondent herein and thereafter by the Petitioner’s side Counsel on 18.8.2021. I state that Judicial Magistrate No 2, Thiruvallur and now Metropolitan Magistrate No VI, Egmore was acted as functus officio and discharged her statutory judicial function as per Section 176(1-A) of Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the Commission should not have examined the Judicial Magistrate and should have considered only the records and thus the Commission exceeded it powers in summoning the Judicial Magistrate and therefore, abused its power. The decision taken by the functus officio becomes final and the same is not subject to scrutiny by the 1st Respondent. When suo motu action is taken there is no need for any counsel to cross examine Commission Witnesses. The State Human Rights Commission itself thus acted with bias and prejudice with ulterior motive in the matter.
24) I state that that the Commission Witness No. 1 Dr.Syed Abdul Khader was called on 28.9.2021 and cross examined by the Counsel of the 2nd Respondent with threatening mode and the Respondent’s Counsel was not properly allowed to examine this witness. Immediately after the proceedings on 28.9.2021 is over, the Counsel for the 2nd Respondent made a press statement and media interview suppressing the very fact that the National Human Rights Commission closed the matter that everything is in his favour and the witness examined on 28.9.2021 deposed in their favour and thus the death of Ramkumar would turn to be a murder. The Counsel for the 2nd Respondent herein further stated that the case was foisted against the deceased Ramkumar by the Police, the murder of Swathi committed by three persons and thus the case is to be reinvestigated again. In view of the above statement by the Counsel of the 2nd Respondent herein in the media would amount to contempt of court in view of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in Crl.O.P No 19000 of 2006 dated, 2.9.2016 the request for re-investigation by some other agency was already dismissed. If at all the 2nd Respondent herein aggrieved by the orders of this Hon’ble High Court, Appeal should have been preferred before the Supreme Court of India.
25) I state that it is afraid that if the proceedings in the State Human Rights Commission are allowed to continue further, the Petitioners will not get justice in this matter as the matter was already concluded. I state that as per Section 36 (1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993 is as follows:
“ The Commission shall not enquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force”

26) I state that in view of the above statutory provision, the matter was already enquired by the Judicial Magistrate-2, Thiruvallur as per Section 176(1-A) of Criminal Procedure Code and submitted his findings to the State Government and the same accepted by the State Government, further enquiry by the State Human Rights Commission is barred as per the above statutory provision. Further, the National Human Rights Commission has also enquired into the same matter much earlier than the State Human Rights Commission and therefore, the State Human Rights Commission is expressly barred by this statutory provision.
27) I state that in view of the above stated reasons, I have no other alternative efficacious remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court to quash the Summons issued in Case No’s 6977+7666+7839/2016/C2, dated, 14.9.2020 and consequential further proceedings conducted by the State Human Rights Commission among other the following
GROUNDS:
(a) The summons issued by State Human Rights Commission to the Petitioners is ex facie illegal, contrary to law and facts
(b) The State Human Rights failed to examine the Human Rights violations but conducted the proceedings to find out the cause of death of the prisoner Ramkumar s/o Paramasivam which was already concluded on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Judicial Magistrate-2, Thiruvallur as per statutory provisions.
(c) The suo motu cognizance taken by the State Human Rights Commission only on 10.9.2020 and on this date of cognizance, the limitation period of one year is over as per Section 36(2) the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993 and Regulation 9 of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations,1994. Therefore, the State Human Rights Commission is barred by limitation to conduct any enquiry including suo motu enquiry in the matter. The State Human Rights Commission has no powers to condone the delay.
(d) The National Human Rights Commission has already took cognizance of the issue and after investigation closed the matter in file No 691/22/13/2017, dated, 4.5.2020 and closed the matter and therefore, further proceedings is expressly barred as per Section 36(1) the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993. Therefore, the State Human Rights Commission is barred from conducting any enquiry as per Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
(f) The Judicial Magistrate-2, Thiruvallur already conducted a statutory enquiry under Section 176 (1-A) of Criminal Procedure Code and submitted her findings as suicidal in nature by electrocution, the State Human Rights Commission cannot conduct another enquiry and the same is barred under Section 36(1) the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993.
(g) Based on the 2nd Respondent’s request only 5 member team of Doctors and one Doctor from AIIMS, New Delhi have conducted the post mortem and their unanimous decision in any event cannot be questioned at this length of time.
(h) The decision of the functus officio becomes final and therefore, the same is not subject to the jurisdiction of the 1st Respondent.
28) I state that summons issued in Case No 6977+7666+7839/2016/C2, dated, 14.9.2020 been served by Office and therefore, xerox copies of the summons alone have been served on the Petitioners. Therefore, it is just and necessary to dispense with the production of the originals of the summons issued to the Petitioner.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of originals of the summons issued in Case No 6977+7666+7839/2016/C2, dated, 14.9.2020 and thus render justice.
28) I state that the conduct of the 2nd Respondent Counsel making false propaganda through press and media that the death was occurred by some other means. The State Human Rights Commission itself prejudiced in view of the false, malicious propaganda made by the 2nd Respondent’s Counsel. The 1st Respondent tend to usurp the powers of the Judicial Magistrate provided under Section 176(1-A) of Criminal Procedure Code. The State Human Rights Commission did not go into any of the details about the Human Rights Violations. Further, the enquiry is expressly barred by limitation as per Section 36(2) the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993 and Regulation 9 of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations,1994. Further, the conduct of enquiry is also barred as per Section 36(1) the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993 and Regulation 9 of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations,1994 as National Human Rights Commission already enquired the matter and closed the matter. Unless or otherwise stay is not granted to the summons issued by the State Human Rights Commission and consequential all further proceedings, the Petitioners would be prejudiced as all of them are Senior Citizens with various ailments to attend the proceedings. No prejudice will be caused to the State Human Rights Commission in granting the stay to the Petitioners as the balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioners.
It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may grant interim stay on all further proceedings in Suo Motu Case No 6977+7666+7839/2016/C2 heard by the State Human Rights Commission pending disposal of the Writ Petition and thus render justice.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and calling for the records leading to the summons issued in Case No 6977+7666+7839/2016/C2, dated, 14.9.2020 and quash the same and pass such further other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai Before me
on this the 24th day of November,2021
and signed his name in my presence Advocate : Chennai