Madras High Court
S. Krishnamoorthy And K. Palani vs The State Of Tamilnadu Represented By ... on 20 November, 2007
Author: A. Selvam
Bench: A. Selvam
ORDER A. Selvam, J.
1. The two innocent persons under the garb of petitioners have touched the empathetic approach of this Court by way of filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting the reliefs as stated infra:
(a) to declare that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in the Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002;
(b) to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to register the First Information Report with regard to illegal confinement, torture, violation of human rights and malicious prosecution meted out by the petitioners;
(c) to direct the fifth respondent to entrust the investigation to an efficient Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police under the direct supervision of Joint Director, Chennai to investigate the alleged violation of human rights;
(d) to direct the first respondent to pay fair and adequate compensation to the petitioners for having been falsely implicated them in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002;
(e) to direct the first respondent to pay reasonable amount to the affected victims; and
(f) to pass such other and further reliefs as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
2. Before cogitating the merits and demerits of the present petition, it would be apropos to perorate the milieu under which the present petitioners have been implicated as accused in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002.
3. The nub of the prosecution case is that the father of the victim girl by name Sevugan son of Karuppan has lodged the complaint in question on 26.04.1997 in S.P. Pattanam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District and the same has been registered in Crime No. 61 of 1997 under Section 366(a) of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint, it has been specifically stated that the daughter of the complainant by name Sujatha, aged about 12 has been studying in 6th standard at the time of complaint in Oriyur Higher Secondary School and prior to one year, she got menarche. The said Sujath has used to go to school by walk and on her way to school, one Karmegam son of Karuppaiah has hurled burlesque against the said Sujatha and from 06.04.1997 onwards the said Sujatha has been missing. Even after making best efforts, she has not been found out. On the basis of the complaint given by the said Sevugan, the prosecuting agency has set the law in motion.
4. The prosecuting agency somehow or other has obtained a confession statement from the prime accused viz., Karmegam, wherein it has been stated that the present petitioners have also involved in the alleged crime. On the basis of the confession alleged to have been given by the said Karmegam, the petitioners have been bought under the penumbra of investigation and subsequently the petitioners have been arrested.
5. It is stated on the side of the Investigating Agency that the first accused viz., Krishnamoorthy has voluntarily given confession statement, wherein he has admitted to the extent that he has raped the alleged victim girl (Sujatha) and subsequently murdered her and incinerated her dead body and the second petitioner has also rendered his assistance for the unlawful acts of the first petitioner. Under the guise of the confession alleged to have been given by the first petitioner, the petitioners have been arrayed as second and third accused in felonry and subsequently, both the petitioners have been put behind the bar, after getting necessary mittimus from the concerned Court.
6. The Investigating Agency has proceeded the investigation on the basis of the confession statements alleged to have been given by the prime accused viz., Karmegam and the second accused (first petitioner) and completed defective and faulty investigation and ultimately filed a final report before the concerned Magistrate Court. The concerned Magistrate Court has committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the concerned Court of Sessions has taken the same on file in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002.
7. As a prelude to the case of the prosecution, the alleged victim girl (Sujatha) who has been shown as thanatoid has voluntarily come to picture and since the alleged deceased is alive, the petitioners have filed the present petition on the file of this Court and this Court has directed the victim girl (Sujatha) and her father by name Sevugan to undergo D.N.A. test and accordingly, the same has been done and ultimately found that the victim girl (Sujatha) is the daughter of the said Sevugan. After getting D.N.A. test report, this Court has directed the alleged victim girl (Sujatha) to file an affidavit to be shown in the presence of a Notary Public and accordingly she has filed an affidavit, wherein it has been clearly narrated that in the year 1997, she has been studying sixth standard and on 06.04.1997, she has proceeded towards a land for doing work and at that time the prime accused viz., Karmegam has intercepted her and falsely represented that her mother has collected twigs and for doing assistance, she called her. The said Karmegam has taken her to a Thick Forest and ultimately she found that her mother is not available and thereafter, the said Karmegam has taken her to various places and she has cleverly escaped from his clutches and come to Pudukkottai, wherein a couple by name Kalayani and Sundaram have given her haven and brought her as their daughter and subsequently, they married her to one Ganesan son of Karuppasamy. But, there is no blossoming in her marital life and after some time, she has met her parents and finally, it is stated in the affidavit that she does not know anything about the petitioners viz., Krishnamoorthy and Palani.
8. The specific case of the prosecution is that the prime accused viz., Karmegam has kidnapped the alleged victim girl (Sujatha) and subsequently the second accused has committed rape on her and murdered her and also incinerated her dead body and the third accused has rendered his assistance for the unlawful acts of the second accused. The victim girl (Sujatha) has unflinchingly stated in her affidavit that the accused 2 & 3 viz., petitioners have no connection with the alleged offences. Therefore, the clear admission made by the victim girl (Sujatha) has deracinated the entire case of the prosecution so far as the petitioners are concerned. Since the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case, in order to ventilate their grievances, the present petition has been filed.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has ingeniously and also ingenuously contended that the first petitioner is an auto driver and doing his profession in Pudukottai and the second petitioner is his friend and both the petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences and both the petitioners have been falsely implicated in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002. The Investigating Agency under the guise of investigation has not only tortured the petitioners but also the brother of the first petitioner and the petitioners have enjoyed the life of prison for a period of 90 days and the first petitioner has also given necessary complaint for violating human rights and since the petitioners have been falsely arrested and incarcerated for the alleged offences not committed by them, the petitioners have filed the present petition for getting the reliefs sought for in the petition and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get the same.
10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has also equally contended that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused 2 & 3 in felonry only on the basis of voluntary confession statements given by the prime accused viz., Karmegam and the second petitioner viz., Krishnamoorthy, the prosecuting agency has no oblique and sinister motive so as to implicate the petitioners falsely in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002 and since the prosecuting agency has acted in good-faith and also in official capacity, the prosecuting agency cannot be made liable in any way and therefore, the present petition deserves dismissal.
11. It has already been enunciated to the extent that a living person has been shown as dead in S.C. No. 117 of 2002. The prosecuting agency has acted only on the basis of the confession statements alleged to have been given by the prime accused Karmegam and the second petitioner viz., Krishnamoorthy. In pursuance of the confession statement alleged to have been given by the first petitioner, no recovery has been made. It is not an adulation to say that the prosecuting agency has not made even a faint attempt to recover something in connection with the alleged murder as well as incineration. Therefore, it is quite clear that the prosecuting agency has adopted lackadaisical and also desultory conduct in conducting investigation. It is also not an exaggeration to say that the prosecuting agency has done defective and faulty investigation and ultimately put the petitioners behind the bar unnecessarily for a period of 90 days for the alleged crime not committed by them. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) is not at all having merits.
12. It has already been marshalled that the petitioners have claimed various reliefs. The first and foremost relief sought for in the petition is to declare that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002.
13. It has already been taunted in many places that only due to lapses and desultory conduct of the Investigating Agency, the innocent persons have been falsely implicated in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get the first relief sought for in the petition.
14. The second relief sought for in the petition is to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to register the complaint lodged in respect of illegal confinement, torture, violation of human rights and also malicious prosecution in S.C. No. 117 of 2002.
15. It is seen from the records that already necessary complaint has been lodged so as to ventilate the grievance of the petitioners with regard to their illegal confinement, torture, violation of human rights and malicious prosecution in S.C. No. 117 of 2002. Even at the risk of jarring repetition, the Court would like to point out that the petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in S.C. No. 117 of 2002 and in fact, they met unnecessary troubles and tribulations at the hands of Investigating Agency and further they have been driven to zenith of melancholy. Therefore, the petitioners should be given proper relief under Human Rights Violation Act. Under the said circumstances, the first and second respondent can easily be directed to register the complaint alleged to have been given and investigate the same.
16. The third relief sought for in the petition is to entrust the investigation to an efficient Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police under the direct supervision of the Joint Director, Chennai with the regard to the complaint given in respect of violation of human rights.
17. Considering the gravity of the offences alleged to have been made by the concerned sleuth under the guise of investigation and also the gravity of offences alleged to have been made by them, the third relief sought for in the petition can also be given to the petitioners.
18. The fourth relief sought for in the petition is to direct the first respondent to pay fair and adequate compensation to the petitioners for having been implicated them falsely in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002.
19. It has already been elucidated in several places that the petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences. The alleged role of the petitioners has been falsified by the victim girl (Sujatha) and the admission of the victim girl viz., Sujatha has completely deracinated the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged crime. Further, the petitioners have been falsely arrested and incarcerated for a period of 90 days and they faced untold miseries and further it is seen from the records that the brother of the first petitioner has also been brought under the ambit of the investigation and he has also been tortured to certain extent. Therefore, this is a fit case so as to direct the State Government to give adequate compensation to the petitioners for wrongs done by its officials under the guise of investigation.
20. At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the following decisions;
(i) The first and foremost decision is D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held categorically held that for established breach of fundamental rights, compensation can be granted under public law by the Supreme Court and by the High Courts in addition to private law remedy for tortious action and punishment to wrongdoer under criminal law.
(ii) The second decision is reported in 2004 M.L.J. (Crl.) 360 Ms. Arokia Mary Lucia v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai and others) wherein this Court has held the act of the police officer in concert with other persons, in filing false case against the innocent and service minded persons, is to be severely condemned. The Court in quashing such a false case against a service minded person, directed the State to pay sum of rupees one lakh as compensation to the service minded person, and to recover the same from erring police officers. The Court directed the State Government to take disciplinary action against such officers.
(iii) The third decision is Radha Bai v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, represented by its Chief Secretary and Ors., wherein also the Honourable Apex Court has held that for loss of reputation and honour, adequate compensation can be awarded.
21. With these legal backdrops, the Court has to analyse further about the fourth relief sought for in the petition. Of-course, it is true that the Police are, no doubt, under a legal duty and have legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of an offence but the law does not permit use of third-degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with a view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.
22. The Police can make an arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case, may be considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances:
(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror-stricken victims.
(ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law.
(iii) The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.
(iv) The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is likely to commit similar offences again.
23. In the instant case, as pointed out in many places the Investigating Agency has simply acted only on the basis of confession statements alleged to have been given by the prime accused as well as the first petitioner without probing into the matter properly and thereby the Investigating Agency has done a gargantuan mistake and consequently, the innocent petitioners have faced unnecessary torture, troubles and tribulations, and also prison life for a period of 90 days. Since the Investigating Agency has done a stupendous mistake and due to that the innocent petitioners have faced untold miseries, definitely, the petitioners should adequately be compensated.
24. Considering the arrest made by the Investigating Agency, false implication of the petitioners in S.C. No. 117 of 2002 and also the torture meted out by them, the Court feels that each petitioner is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and the State Government is liable to pay the same.
25. Now, the Court has to consider the reliefs of 'e' & 'f'. Since it has already been decided that each petitioner is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the State Government, the reliefs claimed as 'e' & 'f' need not be granted.
26. In fine, this petition is allowed to the extent mentioned below;
(a) It is declared that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002.
(b) The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to take proper steps in respect of the complaint given with regard to violation of Human Rights.
(c) The fifth respondent is directed to entrust the investigation to an efficient Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the violation of Human Rights of the petitioners and others.
(d) The first respondent is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to each petitioner by way of compensation.
27. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.