Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
A. Sangeetha - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu Department of Home Secretariat Chennai & Others - Respondents
H.C.P. No. 486 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2024
For the Petitioner: P. Muthamizh Selvakumar.
For the Respondents: E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by C. Aravind.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the rights of prisoners under the Prison Rules and the Superintendent's discretion in dealing with offenses committed by prisoners.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Prisoner's Rights - The court addressed the use of excessive force on an under trial prisoner, the rights of the prisoner under the Prison Rules, and the discretion of the Superintendent of Prisons in dealing with offenses committed by prisoners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief for an under trial prisoner who had allegedly sustained bodily injuries due to excessive force and was kept in solitary confinement.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the prisoner to be examined by a Civil Assistant Surgeon and extended all privileges entitled to the prisoner under the Prison Rules. It also emphasized that the Superintendent's discretion to file a complaint with the police meant that the prisoner could not be deprived of his privileges under the Prison Rules.
Issues: Excessive force on the prisoner, solitary confinement, deprivation of privileges under the Prison Rules, and the Superintendent's discretion in dealing with offenses committed by prisoners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court will not adjudicate disputed facts but will safeguard the rights of prisoners by directing medical examination and ensuring entitlement to privileges under the Prison Rules. The Superintendent's discretion to file a complaint with the police precludes deprivation of privileges under the Prison Rules.
Final Decision: The court directed the prisoner to be examined by a Civil Assistant Surgeon, extended all entitled privileges under the Prison Rules, and closed the Habeas Corpus Petition.
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramesh, Sunder Mohan, JJ.
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 3rd respondent to produce the body or person of under trial prisoner, namely, Jeevan (RP-64460) S/o. Anthony aged about 32 years, before this Hon'ble Court and direct the 3rd respondent to provide the adequate treatment to the said under trial prisoner and remove them from the solitary confinement and transfer to High Security Block-1. Further direct the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action against the respondent No.4 to 5 in pursuant to the petitioner representation dated 21.02.2024.)
1. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the Prison Authorities have used excessive force on an under trial prisoner viz., Jeevan (RP-64460) S/o. Anthony aged about 32 years, who is a Srilankan National arrested by the NCB/MDS Madurai in C.C.No.370/21 and confined in the same block in which the petitioner's husband was confined, owing to which, he has sustained bodily injuries and hence, she seeks for medical attention to him and to remove him from the solitary confinement.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, this prisoner has been kept under solitary confinement and apart from his Advocate, he was not permitted to meet his relatives. Since the injuries caused to the prisoner are severe, he seeks for immediate medical treatment to him.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a copy of the Medical Report of the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Central Prison Hospital, Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai, dated 08.02.2024, of one of the prisoner, namely Pushparaj (RP.No.92529/2022), which evidences that there were no external or internal injuries in the body of the prisoner and that his vitals are stable and in good condition. He further submitted that no excessive force was employed on the body of the prisoner and that when a surprise inspection was conducted in the prison cells, several mobile phones with sim cards, chargers, etc., were recovered. Based on such recovery, the Jailer had preferred a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Puzhal Police Station, which was registered in Crime No.66/2024 under Section 42 of the Prisons Act, 1894.
4. The facts, as put forth by the petitioner, have been denied by the respondents. While the Prison Authorities claimed that owing to the seizure of the mobile phones, sim cards, etc., from the prison cells, a complaint has been given and no physical force was used on them, the petitioner claims that her Advocate had witnessed the prisoner in the prison and had seen the injuries.
5. This Court, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not venture to adjudicate such disputed facts. However, the Court will not also be a mute spectator when certain allegations are made of excessive physical force being used on prisoners. In order to strike a balance and safeguard the rights of the prisoner, we are of the view that the prisoner named in the present petition i.e., Jeevan (RP-64460) S/o. Anthony aged about 32 years, can be referred to the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Central Prison Hospital, Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai, with a direction to send a copy of the medical report to the petitioner also.
6. There is yet another aspect in the matter, which may require to be addressed. Under Rule 300 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, when the Superintendent of Prisons is of the opinion that some of the offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) mentioned therein are established against any prisoner, he is required to refer the case to the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction for enquiry in accordance with the procedures contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, in cases, when the Superintendent is of the view that when a prisoner has committed any act that would constitute a prison offence and an off
