Madras High Court
P. Amaravathy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu And 10 Ors. on 14 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)CTC478
ORDER Kanakaraj, J.
1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner is the unfortunate widow whose husband had died while in police custody. The petitioner is seeking in this writ petition a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to register a case against respondents 5 to 10 and hand over the investigation to CBI and also to direct the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs as and by way of compensation for the custodial death of her husband.
3. The writ petition was filed on 14.6.1995. The petitioner's husband wad detained on 5.4.1995 at about 5.00 a.m. by a group of six persons claiming themselves to be police .constables. The petitioner's husband was taken to Theni to the office of the Narcotic Investigation Bureau, for conducting an enquiry. Even as the petitioner's husband was reluctant to accompany the said persons, he was assaulted and dragged to the police van. The petitioner's husband did not return till 10.00 a.m. on the next day. So the petitioner requested her uncle and a neighbour to ascertain the whereabout of her husband. Her uncle one Ramar and one Gopal proceeded to the Narcotic Investigation Bureau at Theni and at about 11.00 a.m. they found the petitioner's husband in a severely injured state and was chained against the wall. It is stated that the petitioner's husband pleaded with the petitioner's uncle and the said Gopal stating that the police were torturing him for extracting money and requested them to see that he is released. Even as the petitioners uncle Ramar and the said Gopal were coming down the stairs, they found respondents 7 to 10 carrying lathis and iron rods and going to the upstairs portion where the petitioner's husband was kept. A little latter, they heard cries from the petitioner's husband. But the said Ramar and Gopal were prevented from going upstairs. The petitioner's brother one Kubendran had sent telegrams to the Chief Minister, and the Chief Justice of the High Court and other higher officials. A complaint was also lodged before the Gudalur Police Station and the same was registered as Cr.No.61 of 1995. In spite of her best efforts, the petitioner could not ascertain the whereabouts of her husband. The villagers and the petitioners squatted before the police Station and conducted a dharna. It is, at that time, that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthamapalayam, informed the petitioner that her husband had passed away and that she can collect the body from the General Hospital, Mortuary, at Tiruchirappalli. The victim's body was brought from Tiruchirappalli to Gudalur at 1.45 a.m. on 7.4.1995. It was found that there were several injuries on the body of the deceased. According to petitioner, her husband was aged about 37 years at the time of his death.
4. It is contended by the petitioner that her husband used to earn a sum of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 7,000 per month from his agricultural operations. This claim is made to justify the compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs claimed in the writ petition.
5. On 7.2,1996, Shivaraj Patil, J. directed the respondents to file the inquest1 report on or before 20.2.1996. On 28.6.1996, I passed the following order:-
"A perusal of the order of Shivaraj Patil, J. dated 7.2.1996 shows that me Government Advocate had taken notice and four weeks time was sought for to file a counter-affidavit. The case was accordingly posted on 20.2.1996. Even on that date the respondents have not given a counter-affidavit Today when the matter is called the learned Government Pleader is in the same position. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners seeks urgent orders. Having regard to the post-mortem certificate issued relating to the death of the deceased M. Pandiyan, it is a case of custodial death. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy, is directed to look into the matter and file a report as to the circumstances under which the death took place so that this court can pass appropriate orders on the writ petition. The report must be filed on or before 25-7- 1996"
6. On 25.7.1996, I passed the following order:
"In pursuance of my order dated 28.6.1996, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli had addressed a letter to the Special Government Pleader, High Court, Madras. In that letter, he says that the Inspector of Police was not in any way responsible for the cause of the death. He also says that an enquiry had been conducted by the R.D.O. and report is not being furnished because it is said to be confidential. The learned Government Pleader submits that records are now available with him including the R.D.O. report. He seeks time to look into the same and argue the case. Hence adjourned to 6.8.1996"
7. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned Counsel for the respondents has produced before me a Government Order dated 28.6.1996. From this order, it is seen that the Government had examined the report of the Sub-Collector made under Police Standing Order No. 145 along with the recommendations of the Collector of Madurai and have directed the prosecution of Thiru Pandiyaraj, Inspector of Police, N.I.B. Madras and also one Rajendran, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, N.I.B. Madras.
8. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, after noticing the above developments, argues that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of compensation without waiting for the ultimate result of the prosecution directed against the Police Officers. In support of this argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has cited several decisions and in my opinion, only the judgment in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police, J.T. 1989 (Suppl.) SC 1 need be mentioned. In that case also there was a report by the Deputy Commissioner of Police accepting the attrocities committed by the Police Officers and the matter was under investigation of criminal prosecution. Under the above circumstances, the Supreme Court of India directed that a sum of Rs;50,000 should be paid to the family of the deceased as and by way of compensation to be invested in a proper manner, so that the destitute's family might get some amount every month towards their expenses. It is no doubt, true that as and when the prosecution is over, it will be possible for the petitioner to claim appropriate compensation from the State under whom the responsible police officers are working.
9. I have myself perused the order of the District Collector dated 2.9.1995. The said order refers to the evidence before the Sub Collector. Adverting to the stand taken by the police officers, the Collector observes, "But there is clear cut mismatch between the exact types of injury found and the incident described by the witness Nos. 12,13,14 and 18. The claim of Pandian falling 3 times due to rain means that he was injured only slightly so that he was able to walk inspite of injuries. A close look on the injuries reveal that many of them are highly unlikely to have happened because of the fall as claimed by Police and 2 witnesses from Kodaikanal."
The Collector also says as follows in his concluding portion of the report:
" However the fact remains that the deceased dies while in custody of the NIB officials and negligence or improper handling of the accused might have led to the death of the accused."
The Collector recommends departmental action against the erring officers namely, Inspector Pandiaraja and Sub Inspector Rajendran.
10. It is heartening to note that the Government has taken the right decision to prosecute the said Pandiayaraja and Rajendran.
11. According to learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. Gandhi, it is necessary that the prosecution should be conducted by the C.B.C.I.D. because the local police may not seriously conduct the prosecution. I cannot make an assumption that the local police will not seriously prosecute the said officers. Having regard to the stand taken by the Government, I have absolutely no doubt that the respondents will seriously prosecute the said two officers and not lightly conduct the prosecution case. It is a matter of grave violation of human rights and one should take pride in upholding the right of a citizen in this country. It is only by punishing those who arc responsible for such custodial deaths that the prestige of the State can be enhanced.
12. So far as the question of compensation is concerned, I am informed that the petitioner has three daughters and one son. They arc living at Gudalur in Madurai District. The petitioner herself being aged 33 years, the children should be fairly young. It is also brought to my notice that there is a LIC policy in the name of the deceased and therefore, the petitioner is likely to get the amount covered by the policy. I have no doubt in my mind that the Life Insurance Corporation will take note of the circumstances in which, the petitioner's husband lost his life and would come to the aid of the petitioner in settling the policy claim as early as possible. I have no information about the policy amount.
13. Learned Special Government Pleader also brings to my notice G.O. Ms. No. 874, dated 8.8.1996 wherein the Government has fixed certain norms for payment of compensation to such persons. In respect of the death due to police torture, a sum of Rs. 50,000 has been fixed in the said Government Order. While I appreciate the gesture of the Government in fixing certain amounts as compensation by way of guidelines, I would be very happy if the Government takes stringent steps to prevent such custodial deaths. One cannot assume that custodial death is a matter of course and a matter of day to day occurrence to fix guidelines for payment of compensation.
14. Taking notice of all the above circumstances under consideration, 1 am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) can be paid to the petitioner as and by way of interim compensation to be adjusted at a later stage when regular compensation is claimed. Out of the said sum of Rs. 1,00,000, a sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) shall be immediately paid to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The balance of Rs. 75,000 (Rupees seventy-five thousand only) shall be invested in a nationalised bank in Gudalur permitting the petitioner to draw monthly interest directly from the bank. The deposit shall be made within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is disposed of in the above matter. There will be no order as to costs.
15. At the time of the grant of a regular compensation after the persecution is over, it will be open to the State Government to recover the amounts from the guilty parties.
16. It is also made clear that the observation contained in this judgment and the report of the Sub Collector shall not be taken as binding on the trial court which tries the said Pandiyaraja and Rajendran in a criminal case.