Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. SUNDAR, N. SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.
Thiru S. Velladurai – Petitioner
Versus
Muniandi and Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 33675 of 2019, W.M.P. No. 34315 of 2019
Decided On : 26-03-2024
Custodial Torture - Human Rights Violation - SC & ST Act, 1989 - [Article 226] - [Section 302 of IPC, 3(1)(10), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(7) of SC & ST Act, 1989] - The court discussed the allegations of custodial torture and human rights violation against the Writ Petitioner, and the lack of evidence to support these claims. The court highlighted the post-mortem report findings and statements from medical professionals to conclude that the Writ Petitioner was falsely implicated and quashed the recommendation made by the State Human Rights Commission.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, was challenged in a Writ Petition for an order passed by the second respondent, alleging custodial torture and human rights violation against the deceased Suresh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to support the allegations of custodial torture and human rights violation against the Writ Petitioner. The post-mortem report and statements from medical professionals indicated that the cause of death was bilateral pulmonary tuberculosis with multiple injuries, and there was no mention of custodial torture or illegal detention by the Writ Petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of custodial torture and human rights violation against the Writ Petitioner, and the lack of evidence to support these claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of any cogent material or evidence to prove the allegations against the Writ Petitioner for violation of human rights. The court concluded that the Writ Petitioner was falsely implicated based on lone statements of an accused before the State Human Rights Commission.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders passed by the State Human Rights Commission and allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the recommendation made against the Writ Petitioner.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the second respondent in SHRC No. 9941, 10032 & 10155 of 2011 and 138 of 2012 by order dated 04.06.2019 and to quash the same.
1. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 04.06.2019 with a prayer to quash the same.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(ii) The first respondent herein is the father of the deceased Suresh. The first respondent was working as a Sweeper in the Virudhunagar Municipality and he belongs to Arunthathiyar Community. The first respondent had preferred a complaint with the second respondent on 15.12.2011 stating that he is residing at Virudhunagar along with his wife Lakshmi 44 years and 3 sons viz. Velmurugan aged 26 years, Suresh aged 22 years and Prabhu aged 15 years and 2 daughters viz. Mariyammal aged 24 years and Chitra aged 21 years. The substance in the complaint submitted with the second respondent is that on 02.12.2011 at about 6.30 a.m. his son Suresh was sleeping at home and the first respondent had left for his job and until 7 pm on 03.12.2011, his son Suresh did not return back home. Therefore, the first respondent and his family members went in search of the deceased Suresh and could not find him anywhere. However, the first respondent felt that Suresh could have gone out of station.
(iii) That being the situation, on 13.12.2011 at about 11.30 a.m. one of his relatives by name Muniyandi aged about 37 years received a call from Virudhunagar West Police Station informing that the first respondent and his wife were in search of their son and therefore his brother in law Muniyandi took them to Virudhunagar West Police Station. The Police attached to Madurai Division informed the first respondent and his family that his son Suresh had died and his body has been kept in Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and they compelled them to take the body.
(iv) According to the first respondent, when they saw the body of the deceased Suresh, there were injuries on the left leg and there was bandage on it. The Police had informed them that on 05.12.2011, the deceased Suresh along with his friend David was arrested at the time of stealing a two wheeler and caught red handed by the public who had beaten them. A criminal case was registered in Crime No. 2326 of 2011 for offence under Sections 379 and 511 I.P.C. by Karimedu Police Station as against the deceased Suresh and the said David. Thereby the deceased Suresh and his friend David sustained injuries. Thereafter, they were taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital on 05.12.2011 and despite treatment, the deceased Suresh succumbed to death on 13.12.2011.
3. An advocate who met David, the co-accused of deceased Suresh when he was kept in Central Prison, Madurai had informed him that the Police had foisted a case and detained the said David and the deceased Suresh on 02.12.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. On 02.12.2011, though the Police suspected that the said David and the deceased Suresh could have attempted to steal the vehicle, during enquiry, both Suresh and David had made it clear to the Police that they did not commit such offence. However, the public had suspicion over their attitude and only due to wrong understanding, the public felt that they had come to steal the vehicle and handed over them to the local Police.
4. On 02.12.2011 between 10.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. nearly 15 Police officers have come to Karimedu Police Station and for 30 minutes all of them have severely beaten up the said David and the deceased Suresh. Due to torture, the deceased Suresh sustained injuries on the ribs, penis and on the
The absence of evidence and failure to provide an opportunity for defense render adverse remarks in a human rights commission's order invalid, emphasizing fair procedural practices in legal proceedin....
(1) At the stage of framing of charge probative value of material on record cannot be gone into, material brought on record by prosecution has be accepted as true at that stage.(2) It is no part of o....
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 governm....
Judicial inquiries under Section 176(1A) of the CrPC must be independent of police investigations, addressing wider issues associated with custodial deaths and ensuring proper accountability for poli....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to reopen a case for further evidence, the assessment of the bona fides of such applications, and the interpretation of prov....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
