Madras High Court
K.V. Rajendran vs The Inspector Of Police And Ors. on 1 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001CRILJ4092
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam
ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" is a part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The content of Article 21 of our Constitution, read in the light of Article 19, is similarly elevating. But romance about, human rights and rhetoric about constitutional mandates lose credibility if, in practice, the protectors of law and minions of the State become engines of terror and panic people into fear. We are constrained to make these observations as our conscience is in consternation when we read the facts of the case which have given rise to the order challenged before us in this petition.
2. I am reminded of the above observation made by Justice Krishna Iyer, while I go through the facts of this case which are so shocking.
3. K.V. Rajendran, a Senior Lecturer In Physics Department in the Presidency College, Chennai has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking for a direction to the respondents police to register an F.I.R. based on the complaint dated 2-9-1998 against Mr. Karunakaran Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai, the sixth respondent herein and other officials for having brutally tortured him and committed other illegal acts between 26-8-1998 and 28-8-1998 and for transfer of the investigation from the State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the fifth respondent herein and also to order payment of compensation.
4. The case of the petitioner as found in his affidavit filed along with the petition is summarised as follows :
(a) The petitioner hails from the village Tharangampadi in Nagapattinam District. His parents and brothers live in Perumalpet, hamlet of Tarangampadi village. The petitioner has been working as a Lecturer after finishing his M.Sc. and M.Phil, in Madras University for the past ten years in different Government Colleges in Ponneri, Villupuram, Krishnagiri and Tindivanam. For the last two years, he has been working as a Senior Lecturer in the Presidency College, Chennai.
(b) On 26-8-1998, Vinayaka Chathurthi day, he left Madras and reached his village in the evening. After dinner, his younger brother Kannan and himself went to the separate room situate near to his house and slept there. At about 11.00 p.m. 10 people headed by the sixth respondent the Revenue Divisional Officer woke them up by shouting and forcibly took the petitioner and put him in the Government jeep which was parked at a distance. Though the petitioner came to know from them that they were all Government officials, they refused to explain why they were arresting and where they were taking him to. Even while the jeep was going, the R.D.O. the sixth respondent began to beat him and asked him as to whether he had given false information to him through telephone regarding smuggling of teakwood from the area. He replied that he was not the person who phoned up.
(c) Then, the jeep reached the Tharangampadi Taluk Office, he was taken inside the room. The R.D.O. in the presence of other officials who were all Tahsildar and Police Constable in the mufti, asked him whether he had made telephone complaint regarding the inaction of the officials over the smuggling of teakwood in the area. Once again, he replied in the negative. The R.D.O. getting infuriated started slapping him on his face several times and gave severe blows with his hands. He also instigated the Head Constable who was one among the gathered people to beat him. After continuous beating by the R.D.O. arid the Head Constable for about 15 minutes, the petitioner was quetioned about the private life, profession, family members, etc. He gave all the details. Even then, the R.D.O. did not stop beating. He stood in front of him, held both his shoulders tightly and raised his knee and focibly smashed his testicles. He cried out with unbearable pain and fell down on the floor. Then, the R.D.O. began to threaten him asking to give in writing that he was the person who had telephonically called him asking him to take action against smuggling of teakwood. Even after brutal and violent treatment, he refused to heed to the dictates of the R.D.O. Then, the R.D.O. ordered that he be made to stand with his hands placed on two tables. When he was so standing, he took his metal torch light and dealt two blows on his left hand causing serious injuries on the fingures. Thereafter, with the same torch, the RDO gave two blows on the back portion of his head near the lower skull region. Unable to cope up with the pain, he finally caved in and said that he would sign in any papers. Immediately thereafter, the RDO. Ordered white sheets of papers to be brought and obtained his signature on the blank sheets. The R.D.O. thereafter dictated a statement purporting to be his confession which one of the officials wrote on the blank sheets bearing his signature.
(d) When this occurrence had taken place, he was surrounded by the Tahsildar, revenue officials and mufti police. When he was kept in the Taluk Office in the night of 26/ 27-8-98, one of the policemen forced him to part with a "Navaratne" ring, which he was wearing. During that time, his brother Kannan along with another co-villager Ravi reached the Taluk Office and personally witnessed the beating inflicted on him. Seeing the inhuman treatment and fearing for his life, they rushed to the local M.L.A. and informed him. But, despite the phone call from local M.L.A. the petitioner was tortured and his signature was obtained in the blank papers. Then, the R.D.O. handed over the petitioner along with signed papers to the Sub-Inspector of Police. Even then, the R.D.O. asked the Sub-Inspector of Police to give him proper treatment in the lock up.
(e) On the basis of the said instruction, the Sub-Inspector of Police took the petitioner to the adjoining Police Station and instructed the policemen present there to chain the ankles to the table of the Writer of the Police Station. Accordingly, it was done. Although the petitioner was crying in great pain and his hands, head and other parts of the body were swollen, the Sub-Inspector of Police did not offer any help.
(f) Next day, i.e. on 27-8-1998 morning, his brother Karman along with one Marimuthu came to the Police Station and saw him still chained. At about 10.30 a.m. the petitioner was taken in a car to Mayiladuthurai along with some other accused who were brought with him were produced before the concerned Magistrate. But, the petitioner alone was kept aside Only at 2.00 p.m. he was taken to another, room where he was produced before some other Magistrate. Before entering the room, the escorting policemen warned him not to complain about the torture inflicted on him. However, when he was produced before the said Magistrate, he began to narrate the incident by which he was attacked by the R.D.O. and sought for urgent medical treatment. But, the said Magistrate did not arrange for the same, but merely remanded him.
(g) Thereafter, he was taken to Sub Jail, Poraiyar. There, he informed the Jailor about the injuries and requested for the treatment. The Jailor told him that duty doctor would come only next day, i.e. on 28-8-1998. He spent that night in extreme pain without, any first aid or medicines in the jail. Next day at 12.00 noon, the duty doctor visited the Sub Jail and examined him and made entries in the register regarding his injuries. On seeing the injuries on head, left hand, testicles and other parts of the body, he was given O.P. chit. In the evening, as per the orders of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Mayiladuthurai, he was released for taking appropriate treatment.
(h) Since he had acute pain in private parts, he came to Chennai and got treatment from one Dr. Neelmogam, a Senior Doctor. At the request of the petitioner, on that date itself, office-bearers of the Teachers' Association sent a complaint detailing the brutal attacks made on the petitioner by Karunakarari, the R.D.O., Mayiladuthurai, to the Chief Minister, D.G.P. and other officials. As a result of several petitions given by the petitioner to various authorities, the D.R.O., Nagapattianam was asked to conduct an enquiry. He appeared before him and gave all the relevant materials However, the D.R.O. persuaded him to compromise the matter and not to proceed against the R.D.O., Karunakaran. When he found that the enquiry was only an 'eyewash' and police did not take any action, he again sent reminders to the higher officials.
(i) In the meantime, he also came to know that the Deputy Superintendent of Police,' S.B. CID, Nagapattinam was entrusted with the task of enquiring into the allegations and after enquiry, the report has been forwarded to the senior police officials. Though D.R.O. enquiry has not been conducted properly, it is reliably understood that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, S.B. CID, Nagapattinam has collected materials and sent the report stating that the allegations in the complaint given by the petitioner are true. Despite that, no action has been taken by the police by registering the F.l.R. and conducting the investigation against the said R.D.O. and other officials. Hence, he has filed this application for the above directions.
5. Originally, the petition was filed only against five respondents. .On finding that there are serious allegations against the R.D.O. who is Government official, the permission was sought from this Court by filing separate application in Crl. M.P. No. 9123 of 2000 to implead the said Karunakaran, R.D.O. as one of the respondents. This Court ordered the said petition and allowed to implead him as sixth respondent.
6. Though totally there are six respondents, the counter-affidavits have been filed only by the second respondent, viz., Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam, District and Karunakaran, R.D.O., Mayiladuthurai, the sixth respondent herein.
7. The statement of the sixth respondent as found in the counter is briefly stated as follows : --
Karunakaran, the sixth respondent was originally working as Assistant Professor in the Colleges. In 1996, he was selected in the Group I services and appointed as Deputy Collector in the year 1997. He took up his training between 24-4-1997 and 17-8-1998. He joined at Mayiladuthurai as the Revenue Divisional Officer only on 17-8-1998. On 26-8-1998 at about 4.30 p.m. he received a telephone call at his office and the caller informed that one Rajendran, son of Perumal of Vellakoil had secreted teak and sandalwood in the house and asked him to go and seize the same. The caller further informed that when the customs officials were infomed of the same, they visited the place and after receiving bribe they had gone away and that if he also does not initiate action, the same would be published in the daily "The Indian Express". The caller claimed to be one Prasad, a Reporter in Indian Express. Thereafter, he went along with his P.A. and other assistants proceeded in jeep and reached Vellakoil at about 7.00 p.m. and inspected the residence of Rajendran of Vellakoil and no teak or sandalwood was found secreted. Thereafter, he enquired from the said villagers in order to ascertain as to who could have given a false information over the telephone. On enquiry from the villagers, he came to know that the petitioner was the only person who was educated in the village and fluent in speaking English. Therefore, Karunakaran went and questioned the petitioner. Thereafter, he was brought to Taluk Office and there, he was enquired about the telephone conversation. During interrogation, the petitioner gave a statement voluntarily stating that he only gave the false information through telephone. After recording his statement, he handed over his written statement along with him to the police for further enquiry. But, the petitioner gave a complaint to the State Human Rights Commission alleging torture. The District Revenue Officer, on the direction of the Commission, conducted enquiry on his complaint. After finishing the same, the D.R.O. sent a report to the Collector stating that the allegations are false. As such, the averments in the complaint and the affidavit filed by the petitioner are not true. The sixth respondent was also working as an Assistant Professor in College and his parents were also Teachers and as such, he could not indulge in such sort of inhuman activities.
8. The main crux of the counter filed by the second respondent-the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam, is this :
He had also received a complaint from the petitioner relating to the torture by Karunakaran, R.D.O. and on receipt of the same, he directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirkazhi for enquiring into the matter in reference No. G2/28010/98. In the meantime, it came to be known that the State Human Rights Commission was already enquiring into the matter and therefore, it was decided that no parallel enquiry need be conducted at that time. Ultimately, the State Human Rights Commission also passed an order on 8-10-1998 closing the enquiry. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirkazhi sent a report closing the enquiry on the basis of the Human Rights Commission on the basis of the recommendation of the District Collector in the light of the report of the District Revenue Officer.
9. Pending the main Crl. O.P. No. 19352 of 1998 before this Court, the petitioner also filed Crl. M.P. No. 5358 of 1999 requesting this Court to direct the third respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, SB CID and the fourth respondent-Chief Secretaiy to Government to produce the report of the third respondent sent to the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, CID, Chennai. In that application, the direction was given to the third respondent to produce his report in a sealed cover before this Court by the order dated 7-12-2000. Accordingly, the same was produced before this Court.
10. On going through the said report, it is seen that one of the complaints which had been sent by the petitioner was received by the Superintendent of Police, SB CID, Chennai also and he directed the Deputy Superintendent of Poliee, SB CID, Nagapattiriam to conduct a confidential enquiry with regard to the allegations contained in the complaint given by the petitioner regarding the acts of torture committed by Karunakaran and other officials and on that direction, Mr. Sethunathan, D.S.P., SB CID conducted the enquiry and examined several persons and sent a report dated 27-9-1998 stating that the confidential enquiry revealed that most of the allegations made by the petitioner are true.
11. In the light of the above pleadings of the respective parties and the materials placed before this Court, it would be appropriate to deal with the question whether the petitioner would be entitled to reliefs sought for in this petition.
12. According to the petitioner, Karunakaran, R.D.O., Mayiladuthurai, the sixth respondent, suspecting that the petitioner who is an educated person had telephonically asked the R.D.O. to search the premises of one Rajendran of Vellakoil in order to seize the teak and sandalwood secreted, thereby giving false information, took him forcibly when he was sleeping inside his room in Tharangampadi village on 26-8-1998 at about 11.00 p.m. He was taken to Tharangampadi Taluk Office and beaten brutally by torch light and hands on the head and hands causing serious injuries and by knee smashing his testicles and also asked the other police personnel who were in mufti to beat him severely and he was made to put signatures in the blank sheets by compelling him to admit that he was the person who gave the wrong information telephonically. Under the instruction of the R.D.O., the Sub-Inspector of Police also took him to the Police Station where he was chained to a table and he was not given medical aid nor was he allowed to report the matter to the Magistrate before whom he was produced. He got the first aid treatment in the Jail and after came out on bail, he was treated by a senior doctor at Chennai and obtained the certificate that he has sustained grievous injuries on the hands and other injuries on the private parts and head.
13. On the other hand, it is the contention of the sixth respondent Karunakaran, R.D.O. that he did not beat the petitioner. He had a telephonic message from a person who was posing himself as a Reporter in Indian Express that one Rajendran of Vellakoil had concealed the teak and sandalwood in his house and if he does not take action against him, the matter will be published in the Indian Express and on hearing the message, he went and inspected the house of the said Rajendran and he found nothing of that sort and when he enquired the villagers, he came to know that the only person who was conversant with English was the petitioner and therefore, he took him to the Taluk Office and interrogated him and thereafter, he recorded his confession and handed over the confession statement and the petitioner to the Sub-Inspector of Police.
14. Admittedly, both the petitioner and the sixth respondent were not known to each other. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Chennai working as a Senior Lecturer in the Presidency College and he came to the village on 26-8-1998 being the Vinayagar Sathurthi Day. It is also not disputed by the sixth respondent that on suspicion, he was taken to Taluk Office where he was interrogated and after obtaining his statement, he was handed over to the police, who, in turn, registered the case against the petitioner.
15. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was woken up, taken in a jeep forcibly, beaten in the jeep itself and thereafter, he was brutally beaten with torch light on the hands and head by the R.D.O. at Taluk Office, After he was released on bail, he came to Chennai and got treatment from the Doctor. Thereafter, he sent petition after petition to the higher officials not only by himself but also through the Teachers' Association in which he was one of the members. He also approached the State Human Rights Commission by giving a petition and sent a complaint to the Chief Minister and also gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Magapattinam in whose jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place. In such a situation, the enquiry was initiated by the officials concerned.
16. As stated above, on receipt of the complaint, from the petitioner, the State Human Rights Commission directed the District Collector to conduct enquiry and the District Collector also, in turn, directed the District Revenue Officer, Nagapattinam to conduct enquiry. Similarly, the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam also directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Slrkazhi to conduct enquiry. Besides this, the Superintendent of Police, SB CID, Chennai also directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SB CID, Nagapattinam to conduct a confidential enquiry and sent a report.
17. Now, it is seen from the affidavits filed by the parties that the District Revenue Officer conducted enquiry by examining witnesses and sent the report to the District Collector stating that the allegations are not proved. Accordingly, the District Collector accepted the report and sent the intimation to the State Human Rights Commission. On the basis of the said report, the Human Rights Commission closed the enquiry. However, the Human Rights Commission specifically gave liberty to the petitioner that if he is still aggrieved, he can approach the concerned Human Rights Court or other Court for vindication of his right in accordance with law.
18. As indicated above, the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam did not pursue the enquiry, since parallel enquiry was conducted by the District Revenue Officer on the orders of the Human Rights Commission, but, separate confidential enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SB CID, Nagapattinam on the direction of the Superintendent of Police and a report was sent on 27-9-1999 stating that the allegations of illegal detention, torture and assault on the petitioner by Karunakaran, R.D.O., Mayiladuthurai, are true.
19. In the meantime, this appliction seeking for the direction to register the F.I.R. and to hand over the investigation to C.B.I. has been filed on 28-10-1998 and the same has been entertained by this Court on 3-11-1998.
20. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the District Revenue Officer or the order accepting the said report by the District Collector and consequential order passed by the State Human Rights Commission would not disentitle the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for the suitable direction from this Court by invoking inherent powers, especially when the SB CID through confidential enquiry had come to the conclusion that the allegations are true.
21. In this context, this Court is constrained to refer to the following important aspects in order to decide whether the grievance expressed by the petitioner has to be redressed by this Court or not.
22. The petitioner while he was sleeping in his room at the village at about 11.00 p.m. Mr. Karunakaran, R.D.O. the sixth respondent took him, put him in the jeep and brought him to the Taluk Office. The reason for such action given by the sixth respondent in his counter that on the telephonic information given by one Prasad claiming to be a Reporter, India Express regarding the stock of teak and sandalwood in the house of one Rajendran, he went and inspected the said place, but no teak or sandalwood was found secreted and therefore, on suspicion, as he was informed that the petitioner alone was the English speaking person in the village, he took him to the Taluk Office and enquired from him about the telephonic conversation. In the light of this admission, the statement given by the petitioner that he was forcibly taken to the Taluk Office and he was beaten and injuries were inflicted on his testicles by smashing it with knees and the injuries were inflicted on the head and hand by means of torch light by Karunakaran assumes significance. As stated above, the petitioner who is stranger to the sixth respondent had no reason to file the complaint against the R.D.O. by constantly pursuing his request to the officials to take action against him by tapping at the doors of several forums not only by himself but also through Teachers' Association.
23. If the R.D.O. had a genuine suspicion about the petitioner, he had no business to take the petitioner forcibly to the Taluk Office under the garb of enquiry. He would also admit in the counter-affidavit that "since I did not want to embarrass the petitioner in the presence of the villagers, I had brought him to the Taluk Office and enquired him about the telephonic conversation". This sentence would clearly indicate that the sixth respondent wanted that the petitioner shall be suitably dealt with, which cannot be done in the presence of the villagers and therefore, the petitioner was compelled to come with R.D.O. to Taluk Office where the "so-called interrogation" was done.
24. It shall be stated in this context, the law does not authorise the R.D.O. to take a person from his house when he was sleeping in order to enquire about a particular matter at his office. If actually he had any suspicion, that must have been enquired into through proper channel. This act of taking the petitioner forcibly to the Taluk Office is nothing but high-handedness. It is also seen from his counter-affidavit that he is aged about 37 years and he just finished his training on 17-8-1998 and joined at Mayiladuthurai as Revenue Divisional Officer, on the same date i.e. on 17-8-1998. Within nine days, this occurrence had taken place.
25. According to the petitioner, unable to bear the pain over the torture inflicted by the sixth respondent and the police and other officials, he put the signatures in the blank papers. The papers were filled up by one of the officials on the dictation of the R.D.O. According to the R.D.O. it was a voluntary. Had it been a voluntary one, there is no reason as to why the petitioner himself had not written the said statement in his own handwriting. It is also noted that after finishing the writing, the petitioner was asked to read the said written statement and the same was tape recorded. It is found in the enquiry report that R.D.O. admitted having tape recorded. The very fact that the statement of the petitioner at the compulsion of the R.D.O. was read out by the petitioner and the same was tape recorded would itself show that the said statement would not be a voluntary one.
26. Thereafter, the statement was counter-signed by the sixth respondent and the same was handed over to the Sub-Inspector of Police who was present then in the Taluk Office. The Sub-Inspector of Police also was asked to give "proper treatment" to the petitioner in the lock-up. Accordingly, the petitioner was taken to the police station, where he was chained to the table of the Writer and he was not allowed even to pass urine. Both the occurrences relating to the beating by the RDO and other officials and chaining to the table in the police station were seen by the brother of the petitioner and two other local villagers. These facts have not been specifically denied by the Sub-Inspector of Police by filing his counter. On the other hand, the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam, the second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that on 26/27-8-1998 at 01.00 hrs. Karunakarari, Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai appeared in person and gave a complaint to him and the same was registered. The relevant portion of the counter is as follows :--
On 26/27-8-98 at 01.00 hrs. Tr. Karunakaran, Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai appeared in person with a person. He preferred a complaint to me against one Tr. V. Rajendran, S/o Varadarajan (35/98) of Meenayar St., Perumal Pettai who was brought by him. A statement had been recorded by him from the said Rajendran. Tr. Rajendran had admitted in that statement that he had given a phone call to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai impersonating as a Reporter of "Indian Express" stating that huge quantity of sandalwood and teak wood logs were being hidden in the house of one Tr. Rajendran S/o Perumal in a house under construction.
On verification by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai, it was found as a false one and on enquiry from 7.00 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. the Revenue Diivisional Officer has detected the person who has given the anonymous call as Tr. Rajendran S/o Varadarajan. The said Rajendran had admitted that he is responsible for giving wrong direction to officials in discharging their duty.
The said Rajendran was indentified as a Lecturer in Government Presidency College, Madras in the department of Micro Physics. On the basis of the personal complaint by Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai, a case was registered in Poraiyar Police Station Cr. No. 542/98 under Sections 177, 186 and 506(ii), IPC in SI. No. 146 of FIR at 01.00 hrs. on 26/27-8-98 and the accused was arrested after observing all usual formalities. On 27-8-98, he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Mayiladuthurai and he was remanded to judicial custody as per the orders of the learned Magistrate and on the next day he was bailed out.
27. The statement made by the Superintendent of Police, the second respondent herein, in the counter would show as if the complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police by the Revenue Divisional Officer. This is not factually correct. The reading of the F.I.R. registered in Crime No. 542/98 under Sections 177, 186 and 506{ii), I.P.C. would reveal that the statement of the petitioner was handed over along with him to the Sub-Inspector of Police for necessary action. This statement itself shows that the arrest was shown at 01.00 hrs. on 26/27-8-1998. Therefore, between 11.30 p.m. and 1.00 midnight, the petitioner was in the illegal custody of the R.D.O. at Taluk Office where so-called confession was obtained from the petitioner.
28. Furthermore, it is not known as to how the statement alleging that he gave a false information would attract the offences under Sections 177, 186 and 506(ii), I.P.C. The very fact that the complaint was registered immediately for these offences even without verification whether these would attract any cognizable offence would show that the F.I.R. could not have been registered without the specific instruction to do so by the R.D.O. Even in the counter filed by Karunakaran, R.D.O., he mentioned in para 21, "I humbly submit that I had in fact requested the police not to object to the petitioner being enlarged on bail". When he instructed the Sub-Inspector of Police not to object to the bail petition, it goes without saying that he thinks that he has got power to give a suitable instruction to Sub-Inspector of Police either to register a case or to say no objection in the bail petition. This is nothing but ignorance of law.
29. At this stage, it is relevant to note that in the counter filed by the Superintendent of Police, the second respondent, at the end of para 3, it is mentioned that "the investigation in Cr. No. 542/98 was completed and was referred as mistake of law on 23-12-98". This would clearly show that there is not material that he was the person who gave the false information to the R.D.O. and the R.D.O. only on suspicion, took the law into his own hands and tortured the petitioner by making brutal attacks by causing injuries on the various parts of the body including private parts by smashing the same with knees.
30. Yet another disturbing feature at this stage is to be noticed. According to the petitioner, he was taken to the Court along with the other accused who were involved in the other cases and though all the other accused were produced before the jurisdiction Judicial Magistrate, he was not produced before the said Magistrate and he was kept aside and at 2.00 p.m. he was produced before some other Magistrate who was called to be a Special Magistrate who happened to be the Tahsildar working under the R.D.O., Karunakaran, the sixth respondent herein. It is stated by the petitioner when he entered into the room of the Special Tahsildar, he was warned by escorting police officials that he should not complain about the torture. However, when he was produced before the Special Magistrate, he complained and showed the Injuries, but the said Magistrate did not take note of it, but simply remanded him.
31. The fact that he was not produced before the regular Magistrate and he was produced before the Trainee Magistrate who happened to be a Tahsildar has not been denied. There is also no explanation as to why such a discrimination was shown to the petitioner alone. This shows that the Special Magistrate/Tahsildar, who ought to have recorded the statement of the petitioner about the torture against the R.D.O. had not recorded while he was remanded, probably for helping the R.D.O. from future problem.
32. Moreover, it is admitted by the Superintendent of Police, the second respondent in his counter that along with the R.D.O., on receipt of telephonic information, Police Constable accompanied the R.D.O. to Vellakoil village and searched the house of the said Rajendran and thereafter, went to the house of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the Constables and Head Constable were there throughout along with the R.D.O., both when the petitioner was taken forcibly to the Taluk Office and he was beaten brutally by the R.D.O. and other policemen. That was the reason why he was not produced before the regular Magistrate, but belatedly he was produced before the Trainee Magistrate/Tahsildar and remand order was obtained even without recording his complaint of torture.
33. The above factors would reveal that from the beginning, the police personnel as well as the Tahsildar/Special Magistrate have either helped the R.D.O., the sixth respondent in exercise of their duty by exceeding their limit or they have acted illegally at the specific instruction of the said R.D.O. under whom they were working under different capacities.
34. At this juncture, the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SB CID as directed by this Court on the basis of the confidential enquiry conducted by him on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, SB, CID, Ngapattinam District assumes great importance. On going through the report, it is clear that the observation made in the earlier paragraphs by me would find support. On perusal of the said report, it is obvious that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SB, CID conducted confidential enquiry by examining the relevant and important witnesses at various quarters and found that the most of the allegations contained in the complaint given by the petitioner as against Karunakaran, R.D.O., Mayiladuthurai are correct.
35. The gist of the conclusions arrived at by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SB CID after such confidential enquiry could be summarised as below :--
(1) On 26-8-1998 at about 4.30 p.m. Mr. Karunakaran, R.D.O., Mayiduthurai received a phone call to his office phone number at Mayiladuthurai that sandalwood and teak wood were stocked in the house of one Rajendran of Vallakoil. The caller introducing himself as Prasad, the Editor of Indian Express, told him that if no action is taken immediately, he would publish about this in Indian Express. Therefore, the R.D.O. called Muthuvel, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar along with jeep of the latter to his office. He requested the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai to provide two Constables for his operation. Accordingly, they were sent to the R.D.O.'s office. Then, the R.D.O. proceeded along with the Tahsildar, officials of the R.D.O. and the Police Constables. He went to the house of Rajendran of Vellakoil and searched his house for sandalwood and teak wood but nothing was found. During this search, the R.D.O. told him that the informant through phone asking him to search his premises used English words also and enquired as to who could have done this. Then, Vellakoil Rajendran and others told R.D.O. that the petitioner K.V. Rajendran "must have informed through the telephone or must be the person who informed R.D.O. as he is the only person ill-disposed towards Vellakoil Rajedran and well-versed in English. On this information, the R.D.O. went along with the other officials to the house of the petitioner Rajendran around 11.00 a.m. and took him in the jeep to Taluk Office, Tharangampadi.
(2) Kannan, the younger brother of the petitioner was not allowed to accompany the petitioner in the jeep. Thereafter, Kannan went along with one Ravi to Taluk Office. He stated in the enquiry that he witnessed the beating by the R.D.O. The petitioner stated that he reported to Dr. K. Durairaj, Poraiyar during his routine check-up of prisoners on 27-8-1998 showing injuries on his body. The doctor has prescribed medicines Sptron, Brufen and Parastomol. The doctor has has mentioned in page 86 in the "Prisoners' Treatment Register" that he found a contusion on the scalp of the petitioner. But Arjunan, I Grade Warder of Sub Jail, Poraiyar has not made any mention of any injury on the petitioner in the Prisoners' Admission Register, as he did not find any injury at the time of admission of the petitioner. But, the entry made by the Jail Doctor about the injuries on the scalp falsifies this entry.
(3) The allegation of beating by R.D.O. with a torch on his hand would probabilise the fact that the petitioner's left index finger is slightly out of normal shape, arching in the middle. This as well as the middle finger have small humps on their bone, which can be caused by hit on the fingers with a blunt object. The petitioner after his release on 28-9-1998 went and took treatment from Dr. Neelamagam of Malar Hospital and produced the certificate issued by the doctor. The certificate would indicate that the Doctor found hairline fracture of left in-dex finger, bleeding injuries on the head and treatment of testicles etc. If the petitioner had shown his contusion to the doctor at the Sub-Jail, it is natural that he would have shown the injuries on his fingers also. But, the Doctor did not prefer to mention about all the injuries in the register except the contusion on the scalp because the allegation was against the local R.D.O. (4) Vijayaraghavan, Typist working in the R.D.O. Office admitted during the enquiry that he only wrote the statement of the petitioner, as dictated by the R.D.O. It is also accepted by him that the R.D.O. was having a torch light in his hand. But, none could explain for the injuries on the fingers and the contusion on the head of the petitioner. So, the allegation that the petitioner sustained injuries at the hands of R.D.O. while he was in the custody of the R.D.O. appeared to be true.
(5) The petitioner was asked to read about the statement written by Vijayaraghavan, Typist as dictated by the R.D.O. and while he read out, it was tape recorded at the Taluk Office. Normally the tape recording of a statement will be done during a question and answer session. The tape recorder "Philips" Indian make, belongs to Gr. I.P.C. 525 S. Selvaraj of Poraiyar P.S. The enquiry revealed that after dictation was over, the Sub-Inspector of Police was called to the Taluk Office at 1.00 a.m. on 27-8-1998 and instructed by the R.D.O. to keep the petitioner in his custody by handing over the confession statement endorsed by the R.D.O. and the same was later registered in Poraiyar P.S. Crime No. 542/98 under Sections 177, 186 and 506(ii), I.P.C. There are no ingredients in the alleged statement of the petitioner to attract these sections. The contention of the petitioner that Section 506(ii), I.P.C. was added vindictively to arrest him cannot be brushed aside as the case assumed an importance because it was initiated by the local R.D.O. (6) Next day morning, the petitioner was escorted by Grade I Constable Rajagopal and Rajendran of Poraiyar Police Station to the Court of J.M. II, Mayiladuthurai in a Tourist Taxi, along with the five other under trial prisoners from the Sub Jail, who are facing trial under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. On that date, J.M. I of Mayiladuthurai was holding additional charge of J.M. II, J.M. I was sitting up to 1.00 p.m. and thereafter, he went to Sirkazhi. The petitioner was not produced before the said Magistrate, but at 2.30 p.m. he was produced before the Balasubramanian, Special Judicial Magistrate, Mayiludutharai. He is a Tahsildar undergoing judicial training. He recorded in his remand order "Accused produced. No complaints. Remanded to custody till 10-9-1998". The said Special Judicial Magistrate is a Trainee Magistrate and Revenue Official subordinate to the R.D.O. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner thai he was wantonly produced before the Tahsildar after the Judicial Magistrate left at l.O Clock in order to avoid the recording of his complaint of torture cannot be said to be wrong.
(7) The injury found on the fingers and the contusion found on the head of the petitioner bear a proximate cause to the allegations of the petitioner. Further, the R.D.O. seems to have acted in haste in fixing the petitioner as the psuedonimous phone caller. As such, the enquiry revealed that there is a prima facie case against the R.D.O. and his staff who accompanied him.
36. From the above factors which are referred to in the earlier paragraphs and from the conclusions arrived at by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SB CID, it is manifest that there are found important aspects which could be unclisputedly noticed :
(i) The R.D.O. along with Revenue Officials and Police Constables went to the house of the petitioner at 11.00 p.m. and compelled him to come along with them to Taluk Office where he was tortured by the R.D.O. and others for obtaining a statement from him. The statement was written by the Typist working under R.D.O. as dictated by the R.D.O. The petitioner was asked to read out the statement and the same was tape recorded.
(ii) The Sub-Inspector of Police came to the Taluk Office and received the statement copy alleged to have been made by the petitioner with an endorsement by R.D.O. On the basis of that statement, case was registered under Sections 177, 186 and 506(ii), I.P.C. Only thereafter, arrest was shown. He was in the police lock-up on that entire night. Admittedly, the investigation in this case has been referred as a 'mistake of law'. This shows that the petitioner was admittedly in the custody of the R.D.O. at the Taluk Office from 11.00 p.m. to 1.00 a.m. and thereafter, he was in custody of the police lock-up from 1.00 a.m. till he was taken to the Magistrate for remand. There are no details in the counter filed by the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District as to why the said case was dropped as a 'mistake of law'. However, the fact remains that the further action was dropped. The investigation disclosed in that crime number that the details of the confession given by the petitioner are not true. Furthermore, as concluded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SB CID, the statement also would not attract any of the offences mentioned in the said statement. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was in illegal custody from 11.00 p,m. till he was produced before the Magistrate concerned in the case which was subsequently found to be mistake of law. In this situation, the custody both under R.D.O. and the Sub-Inspector of Police cannot be said to be legal.
(iii) Next day, the petitioner was taken to the Court for remand along with the other accused who were facing trial under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. J.M. I was incharge of J.M. II at Myladuthurai. Even though the others were produced before the J.M. I, Mayiladuthurai, the petitioner was not produced before him. On the other hand, after the Judicial Magistrate left at 1.00 p.m., he was produced before some other Magistrate at 2.30 p.m. who happened to be the Revenue official subordinate to R.D.O. who was a Trainee Magistrate. This fact is not disputed. There is also no reason as to why he alone was produced before the Trainee Magistrate, who was working under the R.D.O. In this context, the statement made by the petitioner that his complaint of torture against R.D.O. was not recorded by the Special Magistrate cannot be said to be untrue. Furthermore, the Jail Doctor found contusion on the scalp of the petitioner and the Doctor's certificate produced by the petitioner obtained from Malar Hospital, Chennai would show that he had sustained injury not only on the scalp but also hairline fracture on left index finger and bleeding injuries on the other parts of the body.
(iv) The petitioner sent a petition to the Human Rights Commission. The said Commission referred it to the Collector. The Collector, in turn, asked the D.R.O. who is another Revenue Official to conduct inquiry. The R.D.O. after conducting enquiry recommend to the Collector to drop the action since the allegations were not proved. On that basis, the Collector sent a report to the Human Rights Commission. Accordingly, the Commission felt that no further enquiry need be conducted at the level of Commission and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can approach the concerned Human .Rights Court or other Courts for vindication of his rights in accordance with law. In_the meantime, the Deputy Superintendent of Police under second respondent began to conduct enquiry. But, when the second respondent came to know that the enquiry is being conducted by the D.R.O.; he thought it fit to drop the said enquiry. However, the Superintendent of Police, SB CID directed the third respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, SB CID to conduct confidential enquiry. In obedience to the said direction, he conducted the enquiry, examined the witnesses, collected the medical certificates and sent a report to the Superintendent of Police, SB CID, Chennai s tating that there is a prima facie case made out, since there are sufficient materials available to conclude that the allegations about the torture at the hands of the R.D.O. are true.
37. Mr. Asokan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent has produced the report sent by the District Revenue Officer after enquiry to the District Collector, who, in turn, recommended for dropping further action and the order dated 8-10-1998 passed by the State Human Rights Commission holding that no further enquiry need be conducted at the level of Commission. On the strength of these records, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that no further investigation is needed by the police. It is also submitted that it is open to the petitioner to file a private complaint as against the official concerned for the allegations contained in his complaint. He would cite the decision in AIIMS Employees' Union v. Union of India, 1997 SCC (Cri) 303.
38. The above submission, in my view, lacks substance. The decision in 1997 SCC (Cri) 303 (supra) would not apply to the present facts of the case. In the case dealt with by the Supreme Court, the petitioner without adopting the procedure provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, straightway came to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking for a mandamus. While dealing with the procedure contemplated under Sections 154 to 173 of Cr. P.C., the Apex Court in that case would absorve that when an information constituting the cognizable offence is received and is reduced to writing, the Officer incharge of the Police Station shall register the case and investigate into these cognizable cases under Section 156, Cr. P.C. and after conducting the investigation prescribed in the manner envisaged in Chapter XII, the charge-sheet shall be submitted to the Court having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 173, Cr. P.C.
39. In the case on hand, the petitioner has tapped the doors of eveiy forum including the police. Curiously, D.R.O. was asked to conduct enquiry by the District Collector, who is the Revenue official, against the R.D.O. who was allowed to continue to work as R.D.O. in the very same jurisdiction during the relevant period.
40. The petitioner in his affidavit filed before this Court has categorically stated in para 25 of the affidavit that Mr. Hariharan, D.R.O., Nagapattinam who conducted enquiry was all the time trying to persuade the petitioner to compromise the matter and not to proceed ahead with his demand to prosecute the R.D.O. Karunakaran. It is further stated in the affidavit that an impression was created in his mind that the said D.R.O. was trying to somehow extricate the R.D.O. from the case.
41. The said statement made in para 25 regarding the biased enquiry by the D.R.O. has not been specifically refuted in any of the counter-affidavits. Moreover, the above statement cannot be ignored lightly in the light of the fact that from the beginning both Tahsildar/Trainee Magistrate and the Police Constables and Sub-Inspector of Police of Poraiyar Police Station had been helping the R.D.O. throughout.
42. Under these circumstances, when the statutory authority, namely police failed to perform the duty under Section 154, Cr. P.C., it is the bounden duty of this Court to invoke the powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to give suitable directions to register F.I.R. and investigate, particularly when the contents of the complaint would make out cognizable offences like wrongful confinement, torture, extortion and causing injuries on the vital parts of the body, etc.
43. Furthermore, the Human Rights Commission itself in its order gave liberty to the petitioner that he can approach the concerned Human Rights Court or other Courts for vindication of his rights. Under these circumstances, he has approached this Court by way of vindication of his rights seeking for this direction.
44. In the light of the above pathetic and pitiable factual situation, the judiciary cannot keep quiet by shutting its eyes.
45. The judiciary which is the sentinel of the great liberty of citizens would certainly intervene in the cases where the human dignity is bound in order to uphold human values and to protect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
46. The Goverenment officials required to be sensitised to the values of human dignity and to the restraint in power. When they allow an inhuman conduct on the part of the officials, it exhibits both the indifference and insensitiveness to human dignity and the constitutional rights of the citizens.
47. As Joeph Addison said:
Better to die ten thousand deaths than wound my honour.
If dignity or honour vanishes what remains of life !
48. The protection of the individual from oppression and abuse by the law enforcing officers is a major interest in a free society. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter.
49. If human rights are to triumph, executives must be sensitised, legislators ethicalised and Judges conscientised.
50. The Universal Declaration in Article 3 proclaims that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. But between rhetoric and reality there is a gaping gap.
51. In this connection, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, , wherein it has been held thus:--
But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provisions causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. Needs no emphasis that no one can demand absolute immunity even if he is wrong and claim unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable up to urifathamable cosmos. Any recognition of such power will be tantamount to recognition of 'Divine Power' which no authority on search can enjoy.
52. In then light of the materials available and the conclusion arrived at in the confidential enquiry, it is clear that the R.D.O. has transgressed his limit and illegally exercised his powers causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty of the petitioner. In such an event, this Court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of the grievance has to pass appropriate orders to render justice to the person aggrieved.
53. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to register an F.I.R. based on the complaint made by the petitioner dated 2-9-1998 against Mr. Karunakaran, R.D.O., Mayiladuthurai and other officials for torturing him and for commission of other illegal acts arid consequently, transfer further investigation to the C.B.I., fifth respondent and order payment of compensation.
54. As noted above, the third respondent has already conducted confidential enquiry and submitted that report to the Superintendent of Police, SB CID stating that there are enough prima facie materials to take action on the complaint given by the petitioner against the sixth respondent and others.
55. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the third respondent to register F.I.R. for the various offences mentioned in the.complaint given by the petitioner dated 2-9-1998 against Karunakaran, R.D.O., sixth respondent and other officials and conduct investigation. Since the confidential report show that the preliminary confidential enquiry has been conducted in a proper way by the third respondent, it is unnecessary to hand over the investigation to C.B.I. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SB CID, Nagapattinam District, the third respondent is directed to register F.I.R., as noted above, and take suitable action against the persons concerned in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law, continue the investigation and file the final report.
56. Regarding the claim of interim compensation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner cited judgments in Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, and D.K. Basu v. State, of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1997 Cri LJ 743.
57. In my view, the question of compensation can be considered at the later stage. The more important is that the R.D.O., sixth respondent who has taken law into his own hands and caused serious prejudice to the personal liberty of the petitioner has to be booked and investigation has to be conducted after registration of the F.I.R. Therefore, the question regarding the entitlement of compensation and quantum of the same can be considered by the appropriate forum and at appropriate stage.
58. With these observations, the petition is allowed. Consequently, no separate order is necessary in Crl. No. 9037 of 1998.