SRILAL PERERA

Vs.

POLICE SERGEANT ANANDA AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
PERERA, C.J.
ALUWIHARE, J.
JAYAWARDENA, J.
SC/FR/198/2011
MARCH 21, 2017

Fundamental rights-Articles 11, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution-Mandatory requirements when police officer places a citizen in custody

The petitioner alleged that he had been arrested by the 1st respondent and three other persons, all of whom were in civvies, on 24th April 2011, and taken away in a vehicle, handcuffed and blindfolded, to a thicket, where he was assaulted. Later that day, he was brought to the police station where he was beaten with a stick by the 1st respondent. Over the next two days, the petitioner was taken, handcuffed and blindfolded, to two houses which he was alleged to have burgled, and it was demanded that he hand over items he had allegedly stolen. The petitioner alleged that he was assaulted during those journeys as well, in spite of his denial of any involvement in the alleged incidents of burglary. On 27th April 2011, the 1st respondent had recorded his statement and on 28th April 2011, he had been produced before a medical officer at the Madampe District Hospital. The petitioner alleged that he did not divulge that he had been assaulted to the doctor due to the threats of the 1st respondent who accompanied him. Upon his release on police bail, the petitioner lodged complaints with the Police Headquarters and the Inspector General of Police, and was examined by the Judicial Medical Officer. The petitioner had not been produced before a court in relation to any offence alleged to have been committed by him, nor was he charged in relation to any criminal offence. He then filed a fundamental rights application alleging violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 11, 12(1), 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution.

Held:

1. Every arrest by a police officer attracts section 23(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and it is mandatory that the person arrested

should be informed of the nature of the charge or allegation upon which he is arrested. A bare assertion that the arrest is in accordance with the procedure established by law is insufficient.

2. Even though the 1st respondent may have entertained a suspicion with regard to the petitioner in connection with the series of burglaries he was investigating, the 1st respondent had no right to place the petitioner in custody in the absence of any evidence indicative of any complicity on the part of the petitioner in the alleged crimes.

3. The petitioner's version was more probable than the versions of the respondents. The medico-legal report was also consistent with the petitioner's account of the injuries sustained by him. The petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 11, 13(1) and 13(2) had been infringed.

Cases referred to:

1. Malinda Channa Pieris [1994] 1 Sri LR at 1
2. Christie v. Leachinsky 1947 AC 457

APPLICATION under Article 126 of the Constitution for infringement of fundamental rights.

Shyamal A. Collure with Rassim Hameed for Petitioner.

Anura Meddegoda with Nadeesha Kannangara for the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

Madhawa Thennakoon, S.S.C., for the 3rd and 4th Respondents.

cur. adv. vult.

February 22, 2019

ALUWIHARE, J.

This is an application under Article 126 of the Constitution and the court granted leave to proceed for the alleged violations of Articles 11, 12(1), 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution against the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The facts that gave rise to the violations alleged, are as follows:

According to the Petitioner, on the 24th April, 2011 four persons in civvies had come to the meat stall he runs at the Willaththewa Sunday fair. Handcuffed and blindfolded, the Petitioner had been taken away in a

vehicle by the four persons. The Petitioner was taken to a thicket and had been subjected to assault intermittently. Sometime later in the day, he had been brought to a building and the blindfold had b