Sofiya case compensation HON’BLE THIRU D.JAYACHANDRAN, B.A., B.L., MEMBER.    Dr.A.A.Samy                                                                              … Complainant

               STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TAMIL NADU 

‘Thiruvarangam’

No.143 P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai

(Greenways Road), Chennai-600 028.

 

Wednesday, the 2nd day of March of 2022

 

SHRC Case No.7346 of 2018

                                                            

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE THIRU D.JAYACHANDRAN, B.A., B.L.,

MEMBER.

 

 

  

Dr.A.A.Samy                                                                              … Complainant

 

-Vs-

 

(1) Thiru R.Thirumalai, Inspector of Police, Pudukottai Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

(2) Tmt.A.K.Latha, Sub-Inspector of Police, Pudukottai Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

(3) Thiru V.Ponramu, Addl. Superintendent Police, Headquarters, Thoothukudi/

(4) Thiru R.Prakash, DDP, Thoothukudi Town Sub-Division, Thoothukudi.

(5) Tmt.J.Annathai, then Inspector of Police, Pudukottai Police Station, Thoothukudi (Retired from Service)

(6) Thiru G.Baskaran, Inspector of Police, Special Branch CID attached to Intelligence Department, Chennai.

(7) Thiru S.Nambirajan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Thoothukudi.

 

… Respondents

 

 

ORDER

 

Gist of the complaint allegations is as follows:-

The Complainant was working as Chief Civil Surgeon in Koilpatti Headquarters Government Hospital and retired from service in December, 2010.  His daughter Ms.Lois Sophia is registered for her Masters in Mathematics in the University of Sherbrooke in Montreal and attends classes at the Mc Gill University in Canada and her course shall be completed in December 2018.  She came to India for her holidays from Montreal on 30.08.2018 and on 03.09.2018 the Complainant along with his wife and the victim daughter took an Indigo flight from Chennai to Thoothukudi.  In the same flight Dr.Tamilisai Soundararajan, the then State President of Bharatiya Janata Party was also travelling.  While de-boarding from the flight, Dr.Tamilisai Soundararajan got up from her seat and moved towards their seat to reach the exit the back of the aircraft.  At that time his daughter saying, ‘down down fascist BJP Government’ and she crossed away.  After they reached the arrival hall Dr.Tamilisai Soundararajan had by then instigated her supporters of BJP cadres, who had come to the Airport, gathered and abused his daughter in a vulgar manner and threatened to murder her if she did not apologize to their party leader.  They further stopped us from leaving the Airport.  Her daughter did not commit any offence, but had just voiced her opinion by expressing her freedom of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.  The Inspector of Police, Airport Ms.Nitya tried to intervene and calm down.  But the 1st Respondent Inspector of police, Pudukottai Police Station arrived and they were then whisked away into a car and his daughter was taken to Pudukottai police station.  He was asked to stand outside the police station and his daughter was questioned inside the police station from 01.30 PM to almost 07.30 PM where the Respondents questioned her one after another and totally tortured her.  Thereafter, his daughter was asked to sign in some papers.  His daughter found that she was charged for the offences punished U/s 290 of IPC and Section 75 of TNCP Act.  At 07.30 PM his daughter was taken to the residence of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi and they were told that there was one another section was added by hand in the FIR which was Section 505 of IPC which was a non-bailable one.  His Lawyers argued before the learned Magistrate and she was remanded to judicial custody.  However, his daughter developed a pain in her abdomen and rushed to the Government Hospital, Thoothukudi and admitted there.  The action on the part of the Respondents amounts to mental harassment and torture to his daughter to make her apologize from 01.30 PM to 07.30 PM as stated above and a false case has been registered against her by altering the FIR and the learned Magistrate remanded his daughter to the judicial custody is contrary to the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Therefore, the Complainant is constrained to file this complaint to take suitable action against the Respondents for the violation of human rights of his daughter.

  1. The defence of the Respondents as could be gathered from the counter affidavits filed by them is as follows:-

The Respondents denied all the allegations contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted hereunder.     The 1st Respondent has in his counter statement which was adopted by the 2nd Respondent, stated that the subject matter complaint relates to an allegation by the Complainant, as his daughter Ms.Lois Sophia was unlawfully and highhandedly detained by the Respondent police personnel on 03.09.2018 from 01.30 PM to 07.30 PM under the pretext of a police complaint from Tr.N.Subramanian, Airport Director, Thoothukudi Airport against the said Lois Sophia, who alleged to have shouted, on seeing Tmt.Tamilisai Soundararajan, then State  President of BJP political party, duly raising slogans loud against the central ruling party, while the Indigo flight where both are boarded from Chennai and landed at Thoothukudi Airport, subsequently registered FIR in Cr.No.285/2018 in connection to the above crimes of creating public nuisance as well creating untoward panic situation in a highly notified place and thereby the Respondents involved in violation of her human rights.  The victim Lois Sophia shouted against the co-passenger Tmt.Tamilisai Soundararajan, the then State President of BJP and thereby creating public nuisance and she made a complaint to the Airport Director carrying the incident who in turn forwarded the same to the Pudukottai Police Station at about 02.00 PM for necessary action.  The 1st Respondent conducted formal enquiry and arrested the accused (daughter of the Complainant) at 05.00 PM on 03.09.2018 while she stood nearby Airport junction on Tirunelveli-Thoothukudi four way track.  The arrest of the accused was informed to herself and her relatives duly following the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and she was taken to the Respondent’s police station at once.  Then she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate and ordered for judicial custody.  Subsequently the accused was referred to the Government Medical College Hospital, Thoothukudi for medical checkup and admitted as inpatient in the said hospital.  The Complainant took the accused and his wife in a private car by 12.30 Hrs. and left the arrival hall of the Airport along with his Advocates.  These Respondents never committed any atrocities or harassed the victim as alleged in the complaint.  Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The Respondents 3 & 4has stated in their counter statement that on 03.09.2018 at about 05.10 PM the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District through wireless instructed the Respondents 3 & 4 to attend bandobust at Pudukottai police station since the supporters of Tmt.Tamilisai Soundararajan assembled in front of the police station with a plan to siege the police station and to attack the said Lois Sophia.  They have not enquired or met her at that time.  Therefore, the charges against them are devoid of merits and they never committed any atrocities as alleged in the complaint.  Furthermore, the complaint lodged by the Complainant is barred under Regulation ((iii) and 9(x) of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations 1997.  So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The 5th Respondent in her counter statement has stated that this Respondent was not available at the place of alleged occurrence and has no way connected to the allegations by the Complainant.  At the time of alleged incident this Respondent was in bandobust duty at District Collector Office, Thoothukudi.

The Respondents 6 & 7 in their counter statements has stated that the duty of these Respondents is to gather information about the crimes in Rural and Maniachi Sub-Division and also the VIP movement and informed the same to the Intelligence Department.  They never went to the Pudukottai police station and visited Thoothukudi Airport only on that day.  They are not aware of the allegations in the complaint and the same are false and liable to be dismissed.

 

  1. Considering the materials on record and arguments of both the parties and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar –vs- State of Bihar and also from the judgment of D.K.Basu –vs- West Bengal case, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the arrest of an eminent human rights activist PW2 Lois Sophia is not at all essential. This Commission is of the further opinion that it is for the criminal court to decide whether the victim girl PW2 has committed any such offence as alleged by the 1st Respondent for the offences punishable U/s 290 of IPC and Section 75 of TNCP Act and this Commission cannot decide on this aspect. It is also established by the Complainant that though the offences punishable U/s290 of IPC and Section 75 of TNCP Act are bailable in nature, the 1st Respondent cannot arrest the victim girl in a mechanical manner and as per Section 50(2) in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non- bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.  However, the Respondents 1 & 2 also fabricated Ex.P1 FIR by inserting the Section 505(1)(b) of IPC in ink by hand after the preparation and taken out the original FIR.  Furthermore, it is established by the Complainant that the Respondents interrogated the PW2 in Pudukottai police station from 01.30 PM to 07.30 PM by questioning her one after another and caused mental torture to her and the 1st Respondent arrested her and remanded to judicial custody without following the procedures laid down by the Apex Court on this aspect.  It affects the liberty and freedom of the PW2 and needs to be exercised with great care and caution.    Therefore, this Commission holds that all the Respondents had violated the human rights of the PW2 Lois Sophia.  This Point is answered accordingly.

 

  1. Point No.2: – While answering the Point No.1 this Commission has held that the Respondents had violated the human rights of the PW2 Lois Sophia. 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 PW2 Lois Sophia 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.50,000/- from the 1st Respondent and Rs.25,000/- each from the Respondents 2 to 7 (Rs.25000X6=Rs.1,50,000/-) and to initiate departmental action against them.   This Point is answered accordingly.

 

  1.    In the result, this Commission recommends as follows:-

(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-  (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the PW2 Lois Sophia D/o Dr.A.A.Samy, No.93, A/2A, Kanthan Colony Second Street, 3rd Mile Stone, Thoothukudi, 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/- from the 1st Respondent and Rs.25,000/- each from the Respondents 2 to 7 (Rs.25000X6=Rs.1,50,000/-) as per the Rules. 

             (ii) This Commission also recommends to initiate disciplinary action against the Respondents as per the Rules.

(iii) This Commission further recommends to give suitable instruction to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, to comply with the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar case that the accused should not be arrested by the police mechanically where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine

Sd/-

 MEMBER

 

 

To

 

The Principal Secretary to Government

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Secretariat

Chennai – 600 009.

 

Copy to

 

Dr.A.A.Samy  S/o Aiyapillai

No.93, A/2A, Kanthan Colony Second Street

3rd Mile Stone

Thoothukudi-628 008

 

Mmk 02.03.2022

//BY ORDER//

Assistant Registrar (Law)

 

 

 

 

You may also like...