The burden of disproving custodial violence is on the police, and the award of compensation against the State is an appropriate remedy for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.

Dharma Rao Elipe, J.

This writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated 210. 2004 passed in W.P. No.4716 of 1997 on the file of this Court.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that on 210. 1996, when he was proceedings towards the school via Thirukkanur police station, Mr. Arumugam, the Sub Inspector of Police arrested him. On the same day in the mid night, the petitioner was directed to come out of the lock-up and the Inspector threatened the petitioner. He had directed the police personnel present there to beat the petitioner. The Sub Inspector also instigated others to beat the petitioner. Immediately the Head Constable started beating the petitioner with lathi indiscriminately all over the body, as a result of which, he swooned. At about 4.00 a.m., when he was woken up, he found himself in the lock-up with bleeding injuries all over the body. His shirt and dhothi were fully drenched in blood due to the injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner was offered colour shirt and white dhothi and before putting them on, his bleeding injuries were washed with water.

3. The further case of the writ petitioner is that on 30.10.1996, when he was produced before the Magistrate, the petitioner had shown the injuries sustained by him the previous night at the hands of the police personnel. The Magistrate directed the police to take the petitioner to the Government Stanley Hospital, where he was medically examined and found that he has sustained six injuries and the Chief Medical Officer, who conducted the medical examination, directed to admit the petitioner as in-patient. On 11. 1996 at 2.00 p.m., he was discharged.

4. The further case of the writ petitioner is that on 11. 1996, the Sub Divisional Magistrate held an enquiry and recorded the evidence of the petitioner, his advocate and other witnesses. After the enquiry was over, the petitioner preferred a complaint to the fourth respondent therein/fourth appellant herein and also sent a letter by registered post to the fourth respondent to take action in accordance with law. This was followed by another representation dated 11. 1996. As there was no proper follow-up action, another reminder was sent to the third respondent therein/third appellant herein on 30.12.1996. In view of the inaction even to register the First Information Report, he sent a detailed representation on 21. 1997 addressed to the Chief Minister of Pondicherry and the Home Minister, seeking their intervention. In spite of repeated representations, there has been no positive response from the respondents.

5. The further case of the writ petitioner is that he filed W.P. No.4716 of 1997, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to file a First Information Report on the basis of the complaint made by the writ petitioner on 11. 1996 and hand over the investigation of the same to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the second respondent herein and also direct the second respondent herein to take over the investigation of the case and proceed as per law and also direct the first appellant herein to provide all assistance to the second respondent herein in this respect and also direct the appellants herein to provide all documents pertaining to the case free of cost to the writ petitioner to facilitate him to assist and co-operate with the investigation by the second respondent herein and also direct the first appellant herein to pay to the writ petitioner a just and reasonable amount as compensation and to award costs.

.6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents therein, while denying the various

.allegations, the third respondent therein has stated that in execution of Non Bailable Warrant issued by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in C.C. No.3630 of 1996, the fourth respondent therein arrested the writ petitioner on 210. 1996 at 11.30 hours at Thiruvannamalai Road just at a distance of about 200 meters from the police station. With a view to in