Judgment :- The traumatic and harrowing experience of a young housewife at the hands of the Police, as unfolded in this Original Petition, has thrown up the very same exasperating and oft repeated question, yet again. 2. Is the basic human right to dignity and personal liberty at such low premium in the hands of the Police? Can a citizen and that too a woman, be detained by the police in illegal custody and dumped in the midst of sickly and old destitutes in a rescue home for days together with impunity? 3. These disturbing questions have arisen in the following facts ad circumstances. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was taken into custody by the Police from her parental home at Pulleppady in Ernakulam at about 9.30 AM on May 24, 1997. She was brought to the Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam and detained there till 5.30 in the evening. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was thereafter taken to a rescue home known as “Palluruthy Relief Settlement”, in the suburb of Ernakulam city. She was forced to remain in this institution till late in the evening on May 27, 1997. The Police had never registered a crime against the petitioner, nor was she arrested, but she was forced to remain in illegal custody for about 80 hours. 5. In this context it is necessary to refer to the averments made by the petitioner in the Original Petition. The petitioner had been living with her husband in Kunnathunadu after her marriage. Her father had passed away on May 17, 1997. She had gone to her parental home at Pulleppady in Ernakulam in the evening on May 23, 1997 along with her 12 year old son to attend the “post death ceremonies” of her father. The petitioner has admitted in the Original Petition that there is no love lost between her and her brother. Petitioner’s husband is a wholesale dealer in fabrics. Her brother had purchased some fabrics worth Rs.54,000/= from her husband on credit basis. Her husband had extended the credit facility on the recommendation made by the petitioner. Petitioner’s brother had refused to discharge his liability despite repeated demands. This, in turn, had spoiled the relationship of the petitioner with her brother, father and other near relatives. In the aftermath, the petitioner was brutally assaulted by her brother, father and some other relatives. Her husband had extended the credit facility on the recommendation made by the petitioner. Petitioner’s brother had refused to discharge his liability despite repeated demands. This, in turn, had spoiled the relationship of the petitioner with her brother, father and other near relatives. In the aftermath, the petitioner was brutally assaulted by her brother, father and some other relatives. The criminal case filed by the petitioner in this connection was pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ernakulam as CC.1259/1996. 6. According to the petitioner, she reached her parental home in the evening on May 23, 1997. Her brother demanded and insisted that the case pending against him should be withdrawn by the petitioner. He threatened that if the petitioner did not agree to withdraw the case she would be handed over to the Police. The petitioner did not accede to the demand made by her brother. It is further averred by the petitioner that in the morning on the next day, her brother made a telephone call to the Police Station. She noticed that after a short while two Police men came and waited outside the residence. Thereafter, two women constables from Vanitha Police Station came in the jeep of the Flying Squad and they forcibly took the petitioner away to the Police station. 7. The version of respondent No.4, the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Vanitha Police Station is that on receipt of a complaint from the mother and brother of the petitioner in the morning on May 24, 1997, two women constables were deputed to bring the petitioner to the Police Station. According to respondent No.4, the complainants had informed the Police that the petitioner was creating “trouble and nuisance” in their house at Pulleppady. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the mother and brother of the petitioner had reached the Police Station soon after the petitioner was brought there. The complainants filed Ext.R4(a) petition before respondent No.4 which was registered as petition No.88/PTN/VPS/97/EC. In the complaint it was alleged that the petitioner had been threatening them and demanding 20 sovereigns of gold and Rs.15,000/= from them and thus she was continuously creating nuisance in the house. 8. It is admitted by respondent No.4 in the counter affidavit that the petitioner insisted that she be permitted to go back to her house at Pulleppady. In the complaint it was alleged that the petitioner had been threatening them and demanding 20 sovereigns of gold and Rs.15,000/= from them and thus she was continuously creating nuisance in the house. 8. It is admitted by respondent No.4 in the counter affidavit that the petitioner insisted that she be permitted to go back to her house at Pulleppady. But petitioner’s mother and brother were not ready to take her. Therefore respondent No.4 “felt that it was not safe for the petitioner to be sent with her brother on that day”. According to respondent No.4 she sent a wireless message to Perumbavoor Police Station requesting them to inform petitioner’s husband to take her with him. But petitioner’s husband did not turn up at the Police Station till 5.30 PM. It is further admitted by respondent No.4 that no case was registered against the petitioner. However, respondent No.4 sent the petitioner to the “Abhayakendra” at Palluruthy. It is candidly admitted further by respondent No.4 that the petitioner was not produced before the Magistrate concerned on that day since no case was registered against her. The petitioner was allowed to go home on May 27, 1997 when her father in law came to take her. 9. It is also pertinent to note that the Commissioner of Police has submitted a report as directed by this Court. In this report the fact that the petitioner was taken into custody at about 9.30 AM on May 24, 1997 and that she was sent to Palluruthy Relief Settlement in the evening on the same day is admitted. It is also conceded that no case was registered against the petitioner. But according to the Commissioner, the action of the Police in sending the petitioner to the rescue shelter at Palluruthy was an act which was done in good faith and with bonafide intention. It is further conceded in the report that the petitioner did not want to go to the Relief Settlement and in fact she had requested to send her back to her husband’s house. But this request was turned down by the woman Head constable. Thus the Commissioner had tacitly admitted that the petitioner was detained in the Police Station from morning till evening on May 24, 1997 and that she was sent to the Relief Settlement against her will and also ignoring her request to sent her to her husband’s house. 10. But this request was turned down by the woman Head constable. Thus the Commissioner had tacitly admitted that the petitioner was detained in the Police Station from morning till evening on May 24, 1997 and that she was sent to the Relief Settlement against her will and also ignoring her request to sent her to her husband’s house. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. According to the 4th respondent she had sent a wireless message to Perumbavoor Police station on 24th May requesting them to inform the husband of the petitioner about her detention in the Police Station. But no document has been produced to corroborate the said contention. In the report filed by the Commissioner of Police it is stated that though the relatives of the petitioner came to know about her detention on 25th May, nobody from her house reached the police Station till the next day. But there was nothing on record to show that any message/notice was sent to the relatives. It is also admitted that the petitioner could not be released on 26th since the Sub Inspector of police was not in the station to issue the “release letter”. The Commissioner has further stated that the superior officers did not know anything about the above incident till an enquiry was conducted by him as directed by this Court. But it is on record that the petitioner had issued Ext.P2 lawyer notice to the Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs, Government of Kerala, to the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam and also to the Sub Inspector of Police, Womens’ Police Station, Ernakulam on May 30, 1997, immediately after she was released from detention. But still, no action was taken by the State or its officers against the erring officials. 11. The callous indifference of the State and its officers is evident from the averments made by the Police Officer in the report. It is hard to believe that the superior officers knew nothing about the incident till an enquiry was conducted. The disturbing aspect is that the enquiry was conducted in February-March 2000. Were the State and its officers to pre-occupied and busy to notice this inhuman and cruel action of their subordinate officers? 12. The petitioner had approached this Court and filed the Original Petition in July 1997. The State was represented in this proceedings by the Chief secretary. The disturbing aspect is that the enquiry was conducted in February-March 2000. Were the State and its officers to pre-occupied and busy to notice this inhuman and cruel action of their subordinate officers? 12. The petitioner had approached this Court and filed the Original Petition in July 1997. The State was represented in this proceedings by the Chief secretary. The Director General of Police of the State and the City Police Commissioner were also on the party array. Still, a responsible officer of the Police force has shown the audacity to say that the Department came to know about this inhuman conduct only when this Court had called for a report in the year 2000. This kind of apathy and indifference to the sufferings of the common man who is at the receiving end is tell tale of the general attitude of the so called “protectors of law and order” in the country. I have no hesitation to hold that the action of the Police Personnel concerned is not only reprehensible but is also liable to be visited with exemplary punishment. 13. The petitioner is undoubtedly entitled to get monetary compensation. But how is the petitioner to be compensated for the mental trauma, stress and agony that she had suffered during those 4 days. What was the crime that she had committed? Even assuming that she had made some illegal demands from her mother and brother for some material riches like gold and money, what right did the Police have to detain this young woman in Police custody without registering a crime? Is the Police Force so insensitive that a helpless woman could be interned in an institution where poor, sickly and hapless destitutes from the street are being looked after? The paradox is that this treatment has been meted out to the petitioner, a woman, by some haughty and insensitive Police Personnel belonging to the same gender. Vanitha Police Stations have been established all over the country with the hope that women officers may show a little more understanding and compassion towards the women folk in distress. But the plight of the petitioner in this case undoubtedly puts a question mark on this avowed purpose for which such a large contingent of women constabulary is being maintained in the force. 14. But the plight of the petitioner in this case undoubtedly puts a question mark on this avowed purpose for which such a large contingent of women constabulary is being maintained in the force. 14. Coming to the question of compensation that has been claimed by the petitioner, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation/damages from the State and its officers. It is trite that this court can in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, award compensation to a victim who was suffered torture or harassment at the hands of a public servant. Of course, the compensation that may be awarded by this court in such a proceeding will be over and above the damages that the victim may be entitled to claim in a civil suit that may be filed under the private law. In such a suit based on the principles of tortuous liability, the plaintiff/victim will be bound to adduce evidence in support of his/her claim. It is true that such a procedure may be a time consuming effort; but the procedure established by law has to be necessarily followed. The availability of the above right under the general law shall not, however, preclude or disentitle a hapless victim from approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 or the High Court under Article 226 of he Constitution of India, seeking adequate compensation from the State. Such a claim can be entertained by the High Court or the supreme Court, because what is involved is violation of the basic constitutional right guaranteed to a citizen. The State and its officers are given the duty and responsibility to protect the life and property of the citizen. It is a solemn duty constitutionally mandated. The State can never forsakes the constitutional obligation and feign ignorance of the illegal actions of its officers/agents. If the materials available on record speak for themselves, the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, can direct such wrong doer to compensate the victim. The compensation in such cases will be in the nature of exemplary damages under public law. 15. It is true that the police force as the law enforcing agency, may be having an unenviable task in their hands these days, especially when there is a widespread proliferation and steep hike in the rate of crimes in the society. The compensation in such cases will be in the nature of exemplary damages under public law. 15. It is true that the police force as the law enforcing agency, may be having an unenviable task in their hands these days, especially when there is a widespread proliferation and steep hike in the rate of crimes in the society. The innovative methods that are being adopted by the criminals call for a radical updating and refurbishing of the existing system and methodology of investigation rather than resorting to third degree methods. In a civilized society there is no room for a barbaric police machinery. What is needed is a skilful and sophisticated police force with heavy emphasis on high degree of efficiency and extreme honesty. 16. In the case on hand what makes the action of the police so glaringly unpardonable and abhorrent is the fact that an innocent woman was forcibly taken to the police station and detained there, even in the absence of a crime having been registered against her. Apart from the curtailment of her personal liberty for 4 days, she was subjected to mental torture of immeasurable proportions. 17. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had quoted the following words of Adriana P Bartow: “Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone, paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself.” Their Lordships had further observed thus in the above judgment: “No violation of any one of the human rights has been the subject of so many Conventions and Declarations as “torture” – all aiming at total banning of it in all forms, but in spite of the commitments made to eliminate torture, the fact remains that torture is more widespread now than ever before ….” 18. It may be true that the petitioner was not subjected to physical torture. But mental torture is more loathsome or baneful than physical torture. Undoubtedly physical torture results in mental pain and anguish. It may be true that the petitioner was not subjected to physical torture. But mental torture is more loathsome or baneful than physical torture. Undoubtedly physical torture results in mental pain and anguish. But the scar that is left behind in the human psyche or mind as a result of mental torture is far more lethal and painful. Its after-effects may linger on. 19. Here is a woman who, it appears, had been leading a comparatively comfortable family life. She had to suffer the ignominy of being detained in a Police Station from morning till evening from where she was lodged in a rescue home, with old and sickly destitutes including imbeciles and mentally retarded persons. This traumatic experience is likely to haunt her till the end of her life. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a few of the land mark decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court on the subject (Khatri v. State of Bihar (AIR 1981 SC 928), Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 1086), M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086), Saheli v. Commr. of Police ((1990) 1 SCC 422) and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (AIR 1993 SC 1960). 21. In the facts and circumstances of this case which are too shocking and disturbing, I have no hesitation to hold that the prayer made by the petitioner to allow compensation to her is eminently justified. Therefore the Original Petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/= to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% from May 24, 1997 till the date of payment, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.