Ratios:
a. Purpose of compensation to victims for violation of fundamental right is not only compensatory but also punitive.
b. Fixation of outer limit of compensation for violation of fundamental right by public servant would not tie the hands of the Court to grant more compensation.
c. Court may quantify and direct payment of compensation of any amount to the victims inspite of the general quantification of such amount by the State.
d. On an admitted facts, the writ Court may assess damage and order payment of compensation for violation of fundamental right.

R. Subbiah, J.

1. These two appeals are directed against the order dated 08.08.2003 in W.P.No.6769 of 1995, whereby, the learned single Judge directed the State to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation to the 1st appellant in W.A.No.3120 of 2003, who was the writ petitioner (died during the pendency of this appeal) for his illegal detention by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Athirampatnam Police Station.

2. W.A.No.3120 of 2003 is filed by Meeran (writ petitioner) for enhancement of compensation and W.A.No.3961 of 2003 is filed by the State for reduction of compensation. Since both the appeals are filed against one order, they are disposed of by a common judgment. The parties are referred to as they are described in W.A.No.3120 of 2003 to avoid confusion. During the pendency of appeal, the said Meeran died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants.

3. It is the case of the appellants that on 211. 1994 at about 7.30 PM, the deceased appellant was taken to Athirampatnam Police Stat6ion pursuant to a complaint lodged by one Tajudeen on the previous day i.e.211. 1994 alleging that the deceased appellant and others waylaid him and decamped with a sum of Rs.70,000/-. Though the deceased was taken to the police station on 211. 1994, till 12. 1994, the arrest of the deceased appellant was not recorded. In between 211. 1994 and 12. 1994, the deceased appellant meted out severe physical torture at the hands of 5th and 6th respondents. In fact DINA MALAR Tamil daily published a news about the arrest of the appellant in the publication of its issue dated 30.11.1994. That apart, when one Palanivel, Advocate visited the police station on 012. 1004 to take the deceased appellant on bail, on the instructions given by the mother of the deceased appellant; but the police officials disputed the arrest of him. But the said Advocate had seen the deceased appellant sitting near the window opposite to the Sub-Inspectors table. Thereafter, the Advocate reported the same to the mother of the deceased appellant. Subsequently, a lawyers notice dated 012. 1994 was sent by one Mr.V.Lakshmanan, Advocate to the respondents police for immediate release of the deceased appellant. After realising that the matter was going out of their control, the 6th respondent produced the deceased appellant before the Judicial Magistrate on 012. 1994 at 5.30 AM. On production, the Judicial Magistrate remanded the deceased appellant to judicial custody. Since the deceased appellant was inflicted with severe injuries, it was explained by the police before the Judicial Magistrate that when the arrest was sought to be made at 5.30 AM on 012. 1994, the deceased appellant attempted to escape, fell down and sustained severe injuries and for which, he was given treatment.

4. But, the respondents had denied the case of the appellant that the deceased appellant was taken by the 6th respondent on 211. 1994 at 7.30 PM. In other words, the respondent police totally denied the illegal detention in between the period 211. 1994 and 012. 1994 as stated by the appellants. But the deceased appellant had approached this Court by way of writ petition, namely, W.P.No.6769 of 1995, to punish all the police officials for illegally confining him for six days in different police stations and also direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for deprivation of his fundamental rights, loss of dignity and injuries sustained while he was confined in the illegal custody.

5. After going through the documents including the affidavits filed by the Advocates and hospital records, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the 6th respondent has effected the custody of the deceased appellant and kept him under illegal custody from 211. 1994 at 7.30 PM to 012. 1994 and directed the 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation to the deceased appellant for the illegal detention by the 6th respondent.

6. The present appealswere fil