Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 895 (MAD)

Vinayagamurthy v. M. Murugesan & Another

2010-02-26

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent, pertaining to S.H.R.C.C.No.1165/2001/STU, dated 13.7.2004. 2. The petitioner has stated that the first respondent had preferred a complaint before the second respondent Commission, in S.H.R.C.C.No.1165/2001/STU, on 26.2.2001, alleging that on 23.2.2001, at about 10.30 a.m, when the workers were engaged in cutting sugarcane in the field of the complainant, at Anavarthikhanpet, the Sub Inspector of Police, Arakkanom Taluk Police Station and ten other policemen had come to the said place and questioned the complainant, the first respondent herein, with regard to certain persons, who were said to be engaged in illicit distilling of arrack in the nearby lands. When the complainant had replied that he had no knowledge about the said persons, the Sub Inspector Police, Arakkonam Taluk and his men had caught hold of the shirt of the complainant and had taken him to the Arakonam Taluk Police Station, in the police jeep. Thereafter, the complainant was kept in the police lock up allowing him to wear only his undergarment. The second respondent Commission, having conducted an enquiry, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner, who was the then Sub Inspector of Police, Arakkanom Taluk Police Station, is guilty of committing human rights violations, by forcibly taking the complainant, the first respondent herein, to the police station and by keeping him under custody, only with his undergarment. Therefore, it was held that the petitioner was liable to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. It had been stated that the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai, shall recover the said amount, paid by the government, as compensation to the complainant, from the petitioner, from his salary. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent Commission had arrived at its conclusions that there were certain human rights violations committed by the petitioner against the complainant, by taking him to the police station, holding him by his shirt and by keeping him in the police lock up, in his under garment, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It had been submitted that there was no evidence, whatsoever, for the second respondent Commission to come to the finding that the petitioner had committed certain human rights violations. It had been submitted that there was no evidence, whatsoever, for the second respondent Commission to come to the finding that the petitioner had committed certain human rights violations. The second respondent Commission had not accepted the claim of the complainant that he was taken to the police station in his undergarment. Further, the second respondent Commission had found that the complainant had not substantiated his plea that he was beaten by the police officials. It had also found that one Mani, an Advocate, examined as W4, was not present at the scene of the occurrence, even though the complainant had tried to show that he had seen the occurrence from a distance. It had also observed that the complainant, Murugesan, the first respondent herein, could not have been taken to the police station only for an enquiry. However, such an observation is based on mere surmises, as it is not supported by the evidence available on record. 4. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent Commission, denying the averments and allegations made by the petitioner, this Court does not find sufficient materials therein, to reject the claims made by the petitioner. In spite of the several adjournments granted by this Court, the relevant records relating to the matter had not been produced before this Court. From a reading of the proceedings of the second respondent Commission, in S.H.R.C.C.No.1165/2001/STU, dated 13.7.2004, it cannot be seen that there was sufficient evidence for the second respondent Commission to come to the conclusion that the alleged human rights violations had taken place. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had committed the human rights violations against the complainant, the first respondent herein. As such, the conclusions arrived at by the second respondent Commission, holding the petitioner liable for certain human rights violations against the complainant, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.