A recommendation by the Human Rights Commission for compensation and disciplinary action against law enforcement personnel is unsustainable if the allegations of assault are not corroborated by medical evidence, such as the Accident Register.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in SHRC Case No.394 of 2018 dated 31.03.2022 and quash the same

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners are the law-enforcing personnel and are working in different cadres at Alwarkurichi Police Station. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 26148 of 2022, who was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant point of time, registered a criminal case against the third respondent in Crime No. 6 of 2018, dated 04.01.2018, for the alleged offence under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. The third respondent was secured for the purpose of investigation and was enlarged on station bail on the same day. Thereafter, on 05.01.2018 at about 00.30 hours, the third respondent admitted himself in the Government Hospital and subsequently lodged a complaint before the second respondent-State Human Rights Commission on 08.01.2018, alleging that he was assaulted by the petitioners. Upon consideration of the complaint, the second respondent- Commission made a recommendation directing payment of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the third respondent, with a further direction for recovery of the said amount from the petitioners and for initiation of disciplinary action. Challenging the said recommendation, the present writ petitions have been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are admittedly law-enforcing personnel attached to Alwarkurichi Police Station. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.26148 of 2022 had registered the criminal case against the third respondent and after the completion of the investigation, the third respondent was enlarged on station bail on the same day. However, subsequently, with an intention to prejudice the criminal proceedings registered against him, the third respondent lodged a complaint before the second respondent-Commission alleging that he had been brutally assaulted by the petitioners between 8.30 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. and thereafter, got himself admitted in the Government Hospital.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the medical records produced by the third respondent do not corroborate the allegations made in the complaint. According to the Accident Register extract, only an abrasion/contusion on the centre of the right side of the back was recorded and no other injuries were noted. The subsequent discharge summary also does not disclose injuries corresponding to the nature of assault alleged by the third respondent. Therefore, the medical records relied upon by the third respondent do not support the allegations made in his complaint. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that the recommendation made by the second respondent-Commission is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the third respondent was arrested by the petitioners at his residence at about 5.30 p.m. and was thereafter subjected to assault by the petitioners. Consequently, he was admitted in the Government Hospital and an Accident Register was prepared on 05.01.2018. The learned counsel would submit that the entire nature of the injuries sustained by the third respondent was not recorded in the initial medical examination and that he continued to take treatment thereafter, during which the injuries allegedly sustained at the hands of the petitioners came to be recorded. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the recommendation made by the second respondent-Commission awarding compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and directing recovery of the same from the petitioners, apart from disciplinary action, does not warran