2010 Supreme(Mad) 3329
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
Sangaiyya
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others
Decided On :Decided on : 06-08-2010
For the Petitioner:Mr.Henri Tiphange, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mrs.Chellammal, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. So. Paramasivam, Government Advocate.
A poor man who lost his son allegedly killed due to torture by the police officials of Keeraithurai police station, Madurai District has knocked at the doors of this Court for a Mandamus, directing the State and others to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and also prayed for a direction to initiate both disciplinary and criminal prosecution against those responsible for the untimely death of his son.
2. The petitioners son, aged about 26 years was running a meat shop at Anuppandi, for his livelihood. He was living with his wife, who was 7 months pregnant, at the time of his death, daughter and two sons, aged 5 and 3 years respectively.
3. On 04.12.2004, Saturday, as usual, he returned from the meat shop. Around 7 p.m., when he was drinking liquor near TASMAC wine shop No.5276, Police Constables, Mr.Marimuthu and Mr.Karuppiah of Keeraithurai Police Station, came there in a motor cycle and questioned him for consuming liquor, in a residential area. On intimation, some other policemen also assembled and took him to Keeraithurai Police Station for enquiry. The same was witnessed by two people. As the petitioners son did not return home, the petitioner was in search of his son. Around 9 p.m., a Police constable, Mr.Marimuthu of Keeraithurai Police Station informed the petitioner that his son was found drunk and for causing nuisance, he was kept in the police station. The said Police Constable took the petitioner to the police station. The belongings, including the key of his shop, kept in his hip were removed.
4. In the police station, the petitioners son was lying on his back, without any movement. Water was sprinkled on his face. He slightly opened his eyes and immediately closed. There was no movement in his body. There were 8 policemen in the police station and the writer got the petitioners left hand thumb impression on a blank paper. They told the petitioner that only a petty case had been registered and that he was instructed to come on the next day, along with his son, to pay the fine amount. Thereafter, when his son was taken to petitioners house by 10 p.m., he found him motionless and came to know that he was brutally assaulted to by the police officials of Keeraithurai Police Station and died.
5. In this regard, a complaint was lodged with Avaniyapuram Police Station and they registered a case in Crime No.820 of 2004, dated 05.12.2004, under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The Sub Inspector of Avaniyapuram Police station came to the petitioners house in a jeep, around 10.30 p.m and removed the clothes on the dead of the body of his son. There were external injuries on the body, blood clots and also injuries on the soles of both feet. Though an autopsy was conducted on 05.12.2004, Doctors have failed to videograph the same, as per the guidelines of NHRC.
6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Sub Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram has failed to register a case, under appropriate sections of Indian Penal Code. In this regard, complaints were sent on 07.12.2004 to the Chief Secretary, Chennai, Director General of Police, Chennai, Additional Director General of Police, Chennai and other higher police officials. According to the petitioner, the police officials under the guise of an enquiry, have tortured his son, which resulted in his death. His son was handed over by the policemen in an unconscious condition, with injuries on his body and it is a clear case of unlawful confinement, torture, physical assault, illegal treatment, resulting in the death of his son. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that though the police personnel have committed serious offences under Sections 120(b), 166, 302, 307, 325, 329, 342, 347, 352 and 357 of IPC, no action was taken against the violators of law, despite the matter being brought to the notice of the respondents.
7. Placing reliance on the provisions of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in D.K.Basu v. State of West Benga