The central legal principle established is the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the police personnel, who treated individuals as chattels and unleashed atrocities on innocent people.

P. Devadass, J. Muthupandi, now, a Grade I Police Constable, comes up with this writ petition as against the recommendations of the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case No.2440 of 2006 for payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the third respondent and collect a portion of it from him.

2. Third respondent Bathirakali is mother of Mareeswari and Chappani Murugan. Bathirakali's husband is a driver. They were residing in Keeraithurai in Madurai.

3. Chappani Murugan came on the constant notice of Avaniapuram Police Station as he was alleged to have been involved in many property offences. In connection with Crime No.182 of 2006 under Section 394 r/w 397 I.P.C., Avaniapuram police was in search of him.

4. On 18.04.2006, at about 7 a.m., Esther Rani, Sub-Inspector of Police and Constable Muthupandi, attached to Avaniapuram Police Station came in search of Chappani Murugan to the house of Bathirakali. At that time, Bathirakali and her daughter, Mareeswari were there. Since her son was not there, the said police personnel got enraged.

5. They took Bathirakali to the Police Station. In this connection, on the same day, in her house, Mareeswari attempted suicide pouring kerosene on her. She was rushed to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. She gave dying declaration to a Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, she died.

6. Bathirakali complained to State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case No.2440 of 2006 that her daughter committed suicide because of the harassment of the said Woman Sub- Inspector of Police and the Constable / the petitioner herein.

7. According to the complainant Bathirakali, the said police personnel, dragged her from her house to take her to Avaniapuram Police Station, in spite of Mareeswari's plea to leave her, as it will affect their family honour and if they do so, she will commit suicide. It fell into their deaf ears and they took her to the Police Station. Inspector Uma Maheswaran chided Esther Rani and Muthupandi for having brought a woman to the Police Station, they replied him that that would enable Chappani Murugan to come to their fold. Mareeswari was true to her words. Unable to bear the harassment, she poured kerosene on her and attempted suicide. Her dying declaration was recorded by a learned Judicial Magistrate, Mareeswari stated that since her mother was taken to Avaniapuram Police Station and unable to bear the constant harassment of police, she has taken the extreme step. Now, Mareeswari is no more. The evidence of P.W.1 Bathrakali, her brother P.W.3 and their relatives P.Ws.2 and 4 discloses the above aspects.

8. The State Human Rights Commission enquired the pitiable plight of the complainant. It gave opportunity to Esther Rani and Muthupandi. In the counter they have candidly admitted that they have taken Bathirakali to Police Station. The admitted aspects in the counter affidavit clearly stares on their face. That apart, in her last statement, Mareeswari pointed out her accusing finger as against the two police personnel, namely, Esther Rani and Muthupandi.

9. Ultimately, analysing the evidence of four witnesses and the witnesses examined on behalf of the said police personnel, the State Human Rights Commission concluded that most inhuman act has been committed by the said Woman Sub-Inspector of Police and the Constable.

10. Since they having meddled with the life and liberty of the citizens, the Commission mulcted the first respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the third respondent and collect the same from Esther Rani and Muthupandi in the ratio of 2 : 1. Now, Esther Rani is no more. She has passed away.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without proper evidence, the Commission has rendered adverse finding against the petitioner.

12. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4 would submit that based on the evidence, the Commission has recorded its findings. The learned counsel appearing for t