Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4938
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
Subbulakshmi
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Home Department, Chennai & Another
W.P. No.15306 of 2000
Decided On : 18-11-2009
For the Petitioners:Ms. Chitra Sampath, Advocate.
For the Respondent: -----
The obligation of the State to pay compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights and the need for a justice-oriented approach in public law proceedings.
Headnote:
Rape Victim - Claim for Compensation - Sections 343, 376(2)(a)(c), 201 IPC - The court discussed the heinous acts committed by the second respondent, the duty of the police to uphold the rule of law, the right to life without sexual abuse, and the obligation of the State to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. The court referred to legal principles from various cases to establish the obligation of the State to pay compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights and the need for a justice-oriented approach in public law proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a poor rape victim, sought compensation for the sexual assault by a police officer. The incident occurred in 1984, and after a prolonged legal battle, the second respondent was convicted in 1996. The petitioner claimed Rs. 9 lakhs as compensation, while the Government had paid only Rs. 1 lakh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second respondent, a police officer, had committed a heinous crime and had attempted to stall the legal proceedings. The court emphasized the duty of the police to uphold the rule of law and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. It also acknowledged the right to life without sexual abuse and the obligation of the State to pay compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights.
Issues: The issues included the duty of the police to uphold the rule of law, the right to life without sexual abuse, and the obligation of the State to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the obligation of the State to pay compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights, as established in various legal principles. The court emphasized the need for a justice-oriented approach in public law proceedings and the duty of the police to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.
Final Decision: The court directed the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. Eight lakhs as compensation to the petitioner with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the writ petition.
This writ petition deals with the claim of a poor rape victim for compensation on account of Sexual assault involving a superior police officer and the resultant mental torture and agony; and even after twenty five years from the date of incident, she is still in the corridor of this Chartered High Court seeking justice.
2. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 9 Lakhs as compensation on account of the criminal act committed by the second respondent police officer.
3. The affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition reads thus:
Factual Matrix:
.(a) The petitioner was residing in Nagal Kulam village within the limits of Nanguneri Police Circle in the District of Tirunelveli. The second respondent was the Inspector of Police Nanguneri Circle in the year 1984.
.(b) There was a dispute between the petitioner and her sister-in-law with respect to the residential house where she was residing. Her sister-in-law was in forcible occupation of a portion of the house and her act was nothing but criminal trespass. The petitioner along with her husband went to the residence cum office of the second respondent on 6. 1984 to prefer a complaint of forcible occupation of her house by her sister-in-law. The petitioner reached the office cum residence of the second respondent at about 6 p.m. The matter was reported to the second respondent who in turn told the petitioner that her sister-in-law had already given a complaint against her and her husband through an advocate and the said advocate would be coming soon and as such, her husband was asked to leave the place. The second respondent assured her husband that he would finish the enquiry and send the petitioner as early as possible. The said version was believed by her husband and accordingly, he left the place.
.(c) The second respondent was stage managing a drama and it was with a specific purpose that her husband was sent away. Immediately after the departure of husband, the second respondent by show of force committed rape and she was allowed to go to her house only in the next morning.
.(d) The petitioner made a complaint to the District Superintendent of Police on 6. 1984 itself. The complaint was registered in Cr. No. 555 of 1984 under Section 376 IPC on the file of the Palayamkottai Police Station. Since the accused was the Inspector of Police, copy of the complaint was sent to the Sub Collector, Cheranmadevi for enquiry.
.(e) The Sub Collector made enquiry on 16. 1984 and submitted his report.
.(f) In the meantime, the second respondent filed a petition before the High Court in Crl. M.P. No. 4176 of 1984 to quash the First Information Report (FIR) in Cr. No. 555 of 1984 on the ground that it was not permissible to register FIR against a police officer before the submission of enquiry report by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The said petition was allowed by the Court and the FIR was quashed as per Order dated 30.7.1984. In the meantime, report was submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the second respondent filed W.P. No. 8 of 1985 to quash the said report. The said petition was allowed and the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to conduct fresh enquiry after giving opportunity to the second respondent. Accordingly, Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry on 19. 1988. The petitioner was examined twice and other witnesses were also examined after four years of the incident. Accordingly, report was submitted to the Government. The Government of Tamil Nadu accepted the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and issued G.O. Ms. No. 1244 dated 27. 1989 whereby and whereunder direction was issued to launch criminal proceedings as well as departmental enquiry against the second respondent. The said Government Order dated 27. 1989 was challenged by the second respondent in W.P. No. 1209 of 1989 and the Writ Petition was dismissed on 3. 1990.
.(g) Meanwhile, the second respondent was prom
