JUDGMENT :

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

1. Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the status of the parties and the exhibits referred to hereinbelow shall be as obtaining in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020.

2. W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020 is filed for direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and the State Police Chief, respondents 1 and 2 respectively, to implement Ext.P2 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (‘Human Rights Commission’ for short) in H.R.M.P No. 10050/2017. W.P. (C) No. 9537 of 2020 is filed by the additional 3rd respondent and W.P. (C) No. 11599 of 2020 is filed by additional respondents 4 to 9, in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020 (suo motu impleaded), challenging Ext.P2 order.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are that the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020, who was working as a Junior Clerk in a Co-operative Bank, was taken into custody by the policemen attached to Haripad police station on 16.10.2017, a hartal day and was subjected to brutal custodial torture and falsely implicated in Crime No. 1699/2017 by the then Circle Inspector of Police, the additional 3rd respondent, the Sub Inspector of police, the additional 4th respondent and the additional respondents 5 to 9, policemen. It is stated that, upon being subjected to custodial torture, the petitioner sustained injuries and was admitted to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, and later treated at the Government Hospital, Mavelikkara and Government Ayurveda Hospital, Cheppad. Against the custodial torture, the petitioner's wife preferred the aforesaid complaint before the Human Rights Commission.

4. On receipt of the complaint, the Human Rights Commission called for a report from the designated Chief Investigating Officer of the Commission. Enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Statements of 11 witnesses were recorded. The investigating officer submitted a report wherein it is stated that though Crime No. 1699/2017 of Haripad Police Station was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested in the said case, there were contradictions in the records showing the arrest and the statements of the witnesses regarding the place of arrest. It is also reported that the treatment records show evidence regarding custodial torture meted out to the petitioner. The order of the Commission recites that the copy of the report of the investigating officer was sent to the complainant and additional respondents. The additional respondents appeared before the Commission and filed their objection to the complaint and the report. They denied having assaulted the petitioner and stated that on the day of hartal, the petitioner broke the glass of a K.S.R.T.C bus and was arrested in connection with the incident. The Commission took evidence in the presence of the complainant and the additional respondents, and the additional respondents have cross-examined the complainant. PW1 to PW6 were examined before the Commission and Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked. The petitioner, who sustained injuries in the incident, was examined as PW2 and was cross-examined by the additional respondents. The additional respondents did not choose to cross-examine PWs 3 and 4. Other witnesses were also cross-examined by the additional respondents.

5. The Human Rights Commission found that the allegation that the petitioner was unlawfully arrested by the additional respondents and manhandled, is true and that the petitioner is entitled to compensation. The Human Rights Commission directed the 1st respondent to give an amount of Rs.35,000/-(Rupees thirty-five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant and to recover the said amount from additional respondents 3 to 9. The State Police Chief was directed to register a case for the offences under the provisions of the Kerala Police A