SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 358

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Maheswari – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu and Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 2448 of 2015, M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 06-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: G. Thalaimutharasu.
For the Respondents: Veera Kathiravan, A. Thirumahilmaran, V. Kathirvelu, M. Subash Babu, S. Maya Perumal, A.K. Azagarsamy.

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the need for stringent action against custodial torture and the failure to curtail such incidents, emphasizing the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate and the government's acceptance of the report.

Headnote:

Custodial Violence - Compensation and Disciplinary Action - Section 174 Cr.P.C., Section 304(ii), 330, 348 and 294(b) IPC - The court discussed the custodial death of the petitioner's husband and the subsequent actions taken by the authorities. It highlighted the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the government's acceptance of the report, and the directions for departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution against the responsible officials. The court also emphasized the need for stringent action against custodial torture and the failure to curtail such incidents.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought compensation and disciplinary action for the custodial death of her husband, alleging custodial violence and negligence by the police officials. The learned Judicial Magistrate's report confirmed custodial torture as the cause of death.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the government to provide scholarship to the petitioner's children and instructed the CB-CID to file the final report without waiting for sanction. It also ordered the Director General of Police to reopen the departmental proceedings and take appropriate action against the responsible officers.

Issues: Custodial violence, compensation, disciplinary action, delay in proceedings, and the need for stringent action against custodial torture.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the government's acceptance of the report, and the need for stringent action against custodial torture and the failure to curtail such incidents.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for providing scholarship to the petitioner's children, filing the final report without waiting for sanction, and reopening the departmental proceedings to take appropriate action against the responsible officers.

JUDGMENT :

B. PUGALENDHI, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take appropriate disciplinary action as against respondents 6 to 13 and to pay punitive compensation for the death caused to the petitioner's husband namely Esakki Muthu by respondents 6 to 13 with 18% interest per annum based on her representations dated 21.07.2014 and 22.07.2014 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

1. This is yet another incident of custodial violence. The petitioner a widow has approached this Court in the year 2014 for a writ of mandamus seeking compensation for the death of her husband Easkki Muthu and also for an appropriate action as against the officials, who are responsible for the cause of the death.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Esakki Muthu was taken to the Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai by the police officials on 13.07.2014 under the guise of an enquiry, where he was beaten brutally and he suffered serious injuries. Therefore in order to escape from the consequences, a case was foisted as against her husband for the offence under Section 302 IPC and he was also remanded to judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai on 15.07.2014 at 9.00 pm. On 21.07.2014 her husband died in the prison. The petitioner claims that she had visited her husband in the prison on the date of the incident. During her visit she found that her husband was having multiple injuries and he was not in a position to stand even for three minutes continuously. Considering the cause of death due to multiple injuries, the Superintendent of Prison, Dindigul, lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Dindigul and the same has been registered in Crime No. 225 of 2014 on 21.07.2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is having four children and her husband was the only bread winner of the family. The petitioner having no other scope has approached this Court seeking compensation and appropriate action as against the concerned officials, who are responsible for the death of her husband.

3. This Court has entertained this writ petition and ordered notice in the year 2015. However, thereafter, the matter was listed only in the month of March 2023. The respondents, who received notice, did not enter appearance. The same was recorded in the order dated 14.03.2023. Only thereafter the respondents filed the counter.

4. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 19.04.2023, the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul has filed a report on 27.04.2023 stating that the deceased Esakki Muthu, was accused No. 5 in Crime No. 895 of 2014 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC on the file of the Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City. He was arrested on 15.07.2014, he was taken for medical examination and was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, who in turn remanded the accused into judicial custody for 15 days in Madurai Prison. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai has re-directed the warrant for judicial custody to the District Prison, Dindigul for the safety of the accused. Accordingly he was shifted to Dindigul, Prison on 15.07.2014, wherein, the Superintendent of Dindigul Prison found the accused with multiple injuries and recorded the same in the jail admission register. The accused was provided with treatment on 16.07.2014, 17.07.2014 and on 19.07.2014 one Dr. Senthilkumar, recommended to shift the accused to the Government Hospital, Dindigul. On 21.07.2014 the accused was taken to the Government Hospital, Dindigul and the Doctor who examined the accused at 4.45pm declared the accused brought dead. Subsequently based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 21.07.2014 a case was registered in Crime No. 225 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Dindigul Tow

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top