W.A(MD)No.452 of 2012

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED :07.02.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

W.A(MD)No.452 of 2012

and

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012

1.Kareem

2.Gurumoorthy

.. Appellants/Respondents 6 & 7

Vs.

1.S.Muthu

2.M.Mallika

3.Minor M.Sathiya

4.Minor M.Gopal

.. Respondents 1 to 4/ Petitioners

5.State of Tamilnadu,

Rep. by the Home Secretary,

Secretariat, Fort St.George,

Chennai.

____________

Page 1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A(MD)No.452 of 2012

6.The Director General of Police,

Post Box No.601,

Dr.Rathakrishnan Salai,

Chennai- 600 004.

7.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

District Collectrate,

Tiruchirappalli.

8.The Inspector of Police,

Manapparai Police Station,

Manapparai,

Tiruchirappallai District.

.. Respondents 5 to 8/

Respondents 1 to 4

9.Chitravelu

.. 9^th Respondent/5^th Respondent

10.Anthoni

.. 10^th Respondent/8^th Respondent

[R3 & R4 are represented by R2

mother, natural guardian.]

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act,

against the order, dated 23.04.2012, made in W.P(MD)No.2943 of 2011.

____________

Page 2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A(MD)No.452 of 2012

For Appellants : Mr.S.Venkatesan

For Respondents : Mr.L.Shaji Chellan

for R2 to R4

:Mr.D.Sasikumar

Additional Government Pleader

for R5 to R8

: No appearance for R1 and R9

: R10 Dismissed vide order dt.18.08.2015

JUDGMENT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

and

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

It is a case where the learned Single Judge of this Court ignoring the

finding of the Human Rights Commission as well as report of the CBCID

exonerating the police officials, who have been suspected for the death of

one Moorthy @ Ramamoorthy, has allowed the writ petition seeking

mandamus to grant compensation. Being aggrieved, writ appeal was filed

stating that with the report of the RDO, who has conducted enquiry soon

after the suspicious death of Moorthy @ Ramamoorthy, the CBI to whom

____________

Page 3 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A(MD)No.452 of 2012

the investigation was entrusted, has found that it is only a case of suicide

and not custodial torture and when the parties took up the matter to the

Human Rights Commission which also enchains the view of the CBCID

investigation. Merely based on the evidence of one Allimuthu-P.W.5 whose

presence at the scene of crime itself is highly doubtful, the learned Single

Judge has awarded a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs payable by the

Government and later on, to be recovered from the respondents 6 & 7. The

improper conclusion of the learned Single Judge overlooking the evidence

of three different entities including the Human Rights Commission is

faulted in this writ appeal.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that

the postmortem report of the said Moorthy @ Ramamoorthy clearly

indicates that there was no external injury and except congested lungs and

heart, no internal injury. The viscera report has disclosed the presence of

poison. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that

Allimuthu, a habitual offender, has animosity with the local police, which

made him to make a false statement as if the police brought the body of

____________

Page 4 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A(MD)No.452 of 2012

Moorthy and placed it under a tree near the police station which has no

corroboration and contrary to the medical evidence.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted

that the learned Single Judge, perusing the order of the Human Rights

Commission, has found that the conclusion of the Human Rights

Commission is erroneous since the theory of the police that the deceased

Moorthy @ Ramamoorthy purchased pesticide and consumed it on his own

got falsified when the owner of the dru