Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 662 (KAR)

SAMATA VEDIKE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2002-10-28

R.GURURAJAN

body2002
R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS are complaining about the police excesses in the case on hand. The first petitioner is an organisation and the second petitioner is an aggrieved person. The second petitioner is claiming compensation in the case on hand. ( 2 ) IT is stated in the petition that the second petitioner was working as a maidservant in the house of the third respondent. She was taken to police station by a man police constable on 4-5-1992 at about 10 a. m. for interrogation. She was not told the nature of complaint. She was not allowed to contact her husband. She was accused in vulgar language and asked to state as to what did she lift from the house of the third respondent. She was taken to Devaraj Police Station. She was made to sit alone in the upstairs of the police station till 7 p. m. Thereafter she was subjected to intense questioning by the police. Thereafter she came to know that the third respondent has lodged a false police complaint against the petitioner in the matter of theft of Rs. 60,000/- and some gold jewels. Her innocence was not accepted. She was tortured by pressing her fingernail. She was threatened of stripping naked and gang rape by the police. No woman police was kept with her. Apprehending gang rape, she urinated and requested the police to allow her to go to toilet. Apprehending police torture and gang rape she jumped from the second floor of the police station building and was grievously injured. She was admitted by the Police in K. R. Hospital with serious injuries and fractures. She was in-patient from 4-6-1993 to 6-6-1993. She was again admitted to hospital from 2-11-1993 to 17-11-1993. She was earning about Rs. 1,400/- p. m. from working as a maidservant. Her case was taken up before the Commissioner of Police, Mysore, and Lokyukta. The National Human Rights Commission was also approached by the petitioner. With these facts petitioner is complaining about the various provisions of law including Article 21. She is seeking for compensation on the facts of this case. ( 3 ) NOTICE was issued to the respondents. They have entered appearance and have filed their statement of objections. The National Human Rights Commission was also approached by the petitioner. With these facts petitioner is complaining about the various provisions of law including Article 21. She is seeking for compensation on the facts of this case. ( 3 ) NOTICE was issued to the respondents. They have entered appearance and have filed their statement of objections. They say in the objection statement that on 4-5-1993 one Vijaya Kumar lodged a complaint with the Sarawathipuram Police Station, stating that he suspected the hand of his maid servant Smt. Nanjamma (petitioner No. 2) in the matter of theft of Mangalasutra and other jewels and cash in all amounting to Rs. 55,000/- and requested to take necessary action to recover the same. A case was registered and the CPI "c" Division took up investigation of the case. The Circle Inspector secured Smt. Nanjamma through WHC 88 CJ Kantha and other staff member and she was questioned. At about 7. 30 P. M. Sri Ramakrishna, reporter of "mahanandi" came to the office of the CPI to collect the details of the news items regarding Veerappan. Smt. Nanjamma was asked to sit outside the room. After the press reporter left the CPI's Office, the CPI was attending the routine work in his office room. In the meanwhile, Smt. Nanjamma had gone to toilet and thereafter she jumped out of the police station building. She was immediately shifted to the hospital. The DCP (Crime and Traffic) Mysore, was asked to conduct a preliminary enquiry and to submit his report. It is stated that on 26-5-1993 the DCP (Crime and Traffic) submitted his report stating that there has been some negligence on the part of the police staff of the Devaraja Police Station. Based on this report an enquiry was ordered against the erring officials. They also refer to the enquiry proceedings. They deny the allegations. ( 4 ) THIS Court had directed the respondents to file an additional statement with regard to the result of the enquiry held with regard to the complaint given by the third respondent. The additional statement is filed. In the additional statement it is stated that the investigation is closed in terms of the C-Report. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi, learned counsel states that petitioner No. 2 is the aggrieved person and therefore the matter could be heard. The additional statement is filed. In the additional statement it is stated that the investigation is closed in terms of the C-Report. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi, learned counsel states that petitioner No. 2 is the aggrieved person and therefore the matter could be heard. She took me through the pleadings to contend that the facts of the case would reveal violation of all laws of the country. According to her dignity and pride of the woman was at stake in the police station. She says that compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs would be reasonable in the case on hand, per contra, learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioner alone is responsible for this incident. She has tried to jump out of the police station building resulting in the present situation. ( 6 ) ADMITTED facts reveal that the second petitioner was brought to police station for investigation. In the affidavit filed by the State on 3-10-2000, they admit that the petitioner was brought for questioning in the station. They also admit of the fall and the subsequent treatment. They further admit of an enquiry and a report in favour of the petitioner. The report reveals of negligence on the part of the police staff. In the case on hand, petitioner has narrated the way in which she was treated by the Police. She has also referred to the pain caused to her by the police by pressing her fingernail by a cutting player. She has further referred to the threat by the police of stripping her naked and gang raping her. In the objection statement filed by the Police there is no specific denial of these allegation. It is seen that she has jumped from the police station building resulting in the accident. The same is admitted. But for the threat, petitioner would not have taken the extreme step of jumping from the second floor. Moreover it is admitted in terms of the report that there was negligence on the part of the police authorities. In the light of this material, what is clear to me is that the petitioner has proved the cruelty meted out to her in the police station. Police Station is considered to be a safe place where the citizen can go and lodge their complaint. In the light of this material, what is clear to me is that the petitioner has proved the cruelty meted out to her in the police station. Police Station is considered to be a safe place where the citizen can go and lodge their complaint. In the event of any complaint the offenders are brought for the purpose of investigation. A place of investigation should not be a place of threat of gang rape. In the case on hand, petitioner has proved her case not only by her statement but also by the subsequent material available on record including the report and the subsequent proceedings against the police officials. Therefore what is clear to me is that the petitioner did suffer injury at the hands of police officials. Material facts also admit of fracture injury and the petitioner being an inpatient in terms of Annexure-B. It is also necessary to see that even the so called complaint filed by the third respondent had ended in C-Report. It is stated that the complainant has closed the business and vacated the premises. Therefore what is clear to me is that the complaint against the petitioner is not true or at any rate has not resulted in any action. The theory of the petitioner escaping from the police station cannot be accepted in the light of the police report and the subsequent material available on record. This Court expresses in the given set of facts, its strong displeasure the way in which the authorities have taken the law into their hands. Police people are to treat people decently during investigation. In a country like ours where there is ignorance and poverty of several persons, Police officers are not to take advantage of and make those people suffer contrary to decent living as understood in law. ( 7 ) TAKING an over all view of the matter, this Court cannot but observe that Article 21 - right of decent living with liberty is violated. Life and liberty has been interpreted by Courts of law. Courts have ruled that liberty is inclusive of fair treatment. ( 8 ) THE grant of compensation is considered in a catena of cases by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. Life and liberty has been interpreted by Courts of law. Courts have ruled that liberty is inclusive of fair treatment. ( 8 ) THE grant of compensation is considered in a catena of cases by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board v. M/s. Chandrima Das, (2001) JT (SC) 426 : ( AIR 2000 SC 988 : 2000 Cri LJ 1473) has ruled as under :"11. Having regard to what has been stated above, the contention that Smt. Hanuffa Khatoon should have approached the Civil Court for damages and the matter should not have been considered in petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted. Where public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the violation of fundamental rights or the enforcement of public duties, the remedy would still be available under the Public Law notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for damages under Private Law. " ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court again in (1999) 5 JT SC 237 : ( AIR 1999 SC 2979 ) has ruled as under:"64. There is, therefore, not much of a difference between the powers of the Court exercised here in this country under Articles 32 and 226 and those exercised in England for judicial review. Public Law remedies are available in both the countries and the Courts can award damages against public authorities to compensate for the loss or injury caused to the plaintiff/petitioner, provided the case involves, in this country, the violation of fundamental rights by the Government, or other public authorities or that their action was wholly arbitrary or oppressive in violation of Article 14 or in breach of statutory duty and is not a purely private matter directed against a private individual. " ( 10 ) A learned single Judge of this Court in ILR 2001 Kant 1626 : (2001 AIR-Kant HCR 36 : 2001 Cri LJ 238) has also considered with regard to compensation in a detailed manner. This Court awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioners and her son and directed the State Government to recover it from the Police Personnel responsible for this custodial death. ( 11 ) IN these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has to be granted compensation by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs. 3. 5,00,000/- to the petitioners and her son and directed the State Government to recover it from the Police Personnel responsible for this custodial death. ( 11 ) IN these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has to be granted compensation by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs. 3. 00 lakhs at the time of argument. Petitioner is admittedly aged about 48 years. She has suffered fractures. In addition to that she has suffered humiliation at the hands of the police. She was admitted to the hospital and she was an inpatient from 4-5-1993 to 5-5-1993 and she was again hospitalised from 2-11-1993 to 17-11-1993. The charges are also not proved. She has stated in paragraph 3 of the petition that she has suffered permanent disability in her right hand and leg and not able to do any work to earn her livelihood. Taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, a compensation of Rs. 2. 00 lakh (Rupees two lakh) in my view would meet the ends of justice. The said compensation is payable by the State Government to the petitioner within four weeks from today. On its failure to pay the amount to the petitioner, she is entitled for 12% interest thereafter. Out of the compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/- is directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank at Mysore, for a period of 5 years with high yielding interest in Fixed Deposit. Petitioner is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued for her maintenance. The balance sum of Rs. 50,000/- is payable in cash or by cheque drawn in her favour by the Government in terms of this order. ( 12 ) BEFORE concluding let me see as to what action has been taken against those guilty officials. In the affidavit filed in this Court, it is stated that charges against Sri K. S. Thammaiah, Sri Shivanna and Sri Janardhana Rao, were not proved and only the charges against Smt. C. J. Kantha are proved. The department has exonerated the three officials. In the matter Smt. C. J. Kantha, her annual increment has been postponed by two years. Smt. Kantha has filed an appeal and the appellate authority has awarded the punishment of censure. I have seen the order at Annexure-R-5. The department has exonerated the three officials. In the matter Smt. C. J. Kantha, her annual increment has been postponed by two years. Smt. Kantha has filed an appeal and the appellate authority has awarded the punishment of censure. I have seen the order at Annexure-R-5. It gives me an impression that the police officers have not shown the required interest in the matter of arresting this tendency in police stations. Rule of law is the basic foundation of the democracy. Rule of law can survive only with the active assistance of Police. In the case on hand, rule of law is violated by the very authorities. The Higher Authorities should have taken much more care to see that law protectors are not to become law breakers. Any law breaker is to be properly punished to protect law. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to direct the Director General of Police to get hold of the entire records of the Departmental proceedings and have a second look in the light of this order and take remedial action in accordance with law to maintain purity and dignity of police department. ( 13 ) THIS unfortunate incident would not have come to light but for the Samatha Vedike, a progressing womens' organisation, taking the matter with interest. They have exposed a good cause. They have taken up this matter not only before the authorities but also before this Court. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to award costs to the first petitioner/organisation as well. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- is payable by the State Government to the first petitioner towards legal expenses. ( 14 ) ORDER accordingly. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .