Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 545 (MAD)

A. Soundarajan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu

2001-04-27

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

body2001
Judgment : 1. In this Writ petition, the petitioner prays for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to G.O. Ms. No.1653 Public (Law and Order) Department dated 11.12.2000 and quash the same. 2. The petitioners are working in the Police Department in various capacities in Coimbatore District. While they were functioning in the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Podhanur, the first petitioner herein arrested one Vijayan, Kanakaraj and Sivasami on 19.03.2000 as they were involved in transporting illicit liquor. A criminal case was registered against the said persons in Crime No.655 of 2000 for the offences under Section 4(1)(aaa), 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act read with 468, 471 and 420, IPC. They were arrested around 14.30 hours and brought to the station at about 18.00 hours and they were kept in the Unit Office at Podhanur, Coimbatore District. Vijayan was the lorry owner/driver, Kanakaraj is the Cleaner and the said Sivasami is the mediator. As 19.03.2000 was a holiday, the accused could not be produced before the Judicial Magistrate concerned and hence they were kept in the Unit Office on the night of 19.03.2000. That being so, the first accused namely Vijayan committed suicide by hanging himself at about 5.20 a.m. on 20.03.2000 in the bathroom. The first petitioner gave a complaint of suicide at the Podhanur Police station on 20.03.2001 at 7.30 hours and the same was registered as Crime No.156 of 2000. The complaint was forwarded to the third respondent herein, the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting an enquiry under PSO 145. The third respondent conducted an enquiry at about 8.00 a.m. and sent the body for postmortem at 14.30 hours to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and Postmortem was conducted the next day at 10.15 p.m. The postmortem was videographed and the doctor who conducted the postmortem gave a final report stating that the deceased died as a result of asphyxia due to hanging. The petitioners 1 to 6 were suspended on 20.03.2000 for the said suicide and the suspension was subsequently revoked on 29.09.2000. Thereafter, they continue to be on duty. 3. The petitioners 1 to 6 were suspended on 20.03.2000 for the said suicide and the suspension was subsequently revoked on 29.09.2000. Thereafter, they continue to be on duty. 3. It is further submitted that at the instance of one Shanmugam, State Human Rights Commission enquired into the alleged suicide of Vijayan on the allegation of custodial death and the state Human Rights Commission after its enquiry submitted a report on 08.05.2000 holding that there was no custodial violation on the deceased and there was no indication of any negligence on the part of the petitioners in discharging their official duties. The Commission therefore dropped further action as against the Petitioners and the case was dismissed. The said report of the Commission was also sent to the first respondent. 4. The petitioners further state that they understand that the report was also forwarded to the third respondent. It appears that the third respondent independently proceeded with the enquiry and had enquired several others. The said enquiry conducted by the third respondent was not in the presence of the petitioners and several witnesses have been examined on the back of the petitioners, on the basis of the said statement, the third respondent appears to have sent a report to the District Collector, Coimbatore and it is reliably learnt that the 1st respondent had chosen to issue a Government order ordering initiation of criminal action and departmental proceedings against the petitioners and also against one Mayilsami, one of the Head Constables in the Prohibition Enforcement wing, Podhanur. 5. Aggreived by the impugned G.O., the present Writ Petition has been filed. 6. I have perused the impugned Government Order and in that Order, the Government has taken into account the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore and also the District Collector and on a consideration of the same, the Government had decided that there was necessity to proceed further against the petitioners by filing a criminal complaint as well as initiating departmental proceedings on the Petitioners/Police officials mentioned in the impugned order. 7. I have heard Mr. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners. Considering the nature of the impugned order, and the narrow scope for interference in the Writ Petition, the learned Senior Counsel laid emphasis only on the report of the State Human Rights Commission. 7. I have heard Mr. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners. Considering the nature of the impugned order, and the narrow scope for interference in the Writ Petition, the learned Senior Counsel laid emphasis only on the report of the State Human Rights Commission. According to him, the State Human Rights Commission being a statutorily constituted Judicial Forum had gone into the issue in detail and found that the petitioners were not guilty of any violation of custodial regulations. The Commission had also found that the death was only due to suicide and that the Petitioners were not in any manner responsible for the deceased to commit suicide. When such a clear finding has been rendered by the Commission, it is not open to the Government to ignore the same and to initiate criminal action or Departmental proceedings against the petitioners. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and also the records relating to the proceedings of the Government and the State Human Rights commission, which have been produced before me on my directions to the learned Government Pleader. 9. As regards the scope of the findings of the State Human Rights Commission, it is contended before me by learned Government Pleader that there is no technical or statutory bar for the Police to initiate and proceed with any criminal proceedings notwithstanding the report of the State Human Rights Commission. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is that the State Human Rights Commission is a Judicial Forum and therefore the executive authorities cannot ignore the same and there cannot be a further proceeding before any other Court or Forum. 10. I am unable to agree with the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel. I have gone through the entire records and the report of the State Human Rights Commission as well as the provisions of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Act). On a perusal of the provisions of the said Act, I am unable to hold that the report of the Commission would result in barring any person to approach the Civil or Criminal Court. The object of the Act is to ensure better protection of Human Rights and for matters connected thereto or which are incidental thereto. On a perusal of the provisions of the said Act, I am unable to hold that the report of the Commission would result in barring any person to approach the Civil or Criminal Court. The object of the Act is to ensure better protection of Human Rights and for matters connected thereto or which are incidental thereto. The only provision in the Act which requires to be examined in the context of the issue arising for consideration in this Writ Petition would be Section 13(4) and Sec. 13(5) of the Act which is extracted below: 4. The Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and when any offence as is described in Section 175, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180 or Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is committed in the view or presence of the Commission, the Commission may, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the Statement of the accused as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same and the Magistrate to whom any such case is forwarded shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused as if the case has been forwarded to him under Sec. 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. Every proceeding before the Commission shall be deemed to be a Judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and for the purpose of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)”. 11. A perusal of the above said provisions would disclose that the Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and that the proceedings of the Commission will be deemed to be a Judicial Proceedings only in the context of certain specific provisions mentioned therein. None of the provisions mentioned therein could result in barring any party to take appropriate proceedings before the Civil or Criminal Court as the case may be. None of the provisions mentioned therein could result in barring any party to take appropriate proceedings before the Civil or Criminal Court as the case may be. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 13 only relate to the power of the Commission to initiate action against the persons committing contempt of the Commission or obstructing the proceedings before the Commission, refusing to give evidence or to obstruct the evidence, etc. None of the provisions under the Act could clothe the report of the Human Rights Commission as a bar to take appropriate proceedings before the Civil or Criminal Court. 12. The nature of the enquiry before the State Human Rights Commission is summary in nature and the conclusion arrived at by the Commission cannot deprive the aggreived persons to take appropriate action either before a Civil Court or before a Criminal Court. Just as the learned Senior Counsel had commented about the Revenue Divisional Officer’s enquiry and witnesses having been examined behind the back of the petitioners, the manner of enquiry before the Commission is also summary. The witnesses have not been subjected to any cross-examination. The official status of the two authorities are certainly different, but the nature of enquiry does not differ. Therefore, persons feeling aggrieved by the Commission’s finding that there is no violation of Human Rights, cannot be deprived of appropriate remedies before the appropriate Court. To hold so, would be in fact violation of human rights, it is also necessary to bear in mind that even in cases where Commission awards any compensation or finds any one guil ty of violation of human rights, there is no specific power to execute the award or to punish. The Commission can only recommend to the Government to take further action, or approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for the implementation of its award. In fact, in W.P. No. 15652/1995 dated 19.02.1998, I had directed the implementation of the award of compensation to the Victim ( National Human Rights Commission v. State of Tamil Nadu ). 13. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the enquiry and proceedings before the Commission, in cases where the commission finds that there is no violation of human rights or custodial regulations, such a finding cannot be a bar for the Government or the victims to approach the regular Civil or Criminal Courts for appropriate action or remedy. 14. 13. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the enquiry and proceedings before the Commission, in cases where the commission finds that there is no violation of human rights or custodial regulations, such a finding cannot be a bar for the Government or the victims to approach the regular Civil or Criminal Courts for appropriate action or remedy. 14. The right of the police personnel to file the complaint before the Magistrate or the right of a citizen to file a private complaint cannot be stated to be taken away as a result of an adverse report made by the Commission. Therefore, if the respondents on consideration of the material evidence have come to a conclusion that further action has to be taken either before the Civil or Criminal Court or departmental action be initiated, there is no fetter on the part of the respondents to do so. 15. Therefore, the only ground on which this writ petition has been filed namely on the basis of the report of the State Human Rights Commission being unsustainable, I do not find any error or illegality in the impunged order. When any proceeding is initiated before the Civil or Criminal Court against the petitioners, the petitioners will have ample opportunity to defend themselves. 16. I have gone through the records and the statements given by various individuals as well as the photograph of the deceased taken at the spot. The Commission appears to have relied on the evidence of the Doctor not subjected to any cross-examination. On a perusal of the photograph of the deceased person, it shows that the tap from which the deceased said to have hung himself appears to be less than 3 feet from the ground level. The evidence given by the doctors merely on theoretical basis appears to have found acceptance by the State Human Rights Commission to hold that it was only a suicide. Therefore, I am unable to sustain the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.