Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3756 (MAD)

K. Shobana v. State Human Rights Commission

2015-12-10

N.KIRUBAKARAN, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. The writ appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the first respondent-State Human Rights Commission, giving directions to the State Government to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation to the second respondent for the violation of human rights of the second respondent in the hands of the appellant. 2. The second respondent was detained by the appellant in connection with the missing of a baby. After enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner and the Police team let of the second respondent and another person called Rajammal. It is thereafter the second respondent made a complaint alleging that between 27.04.2003 and 30.04.2004, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the appellant and another Head Constable committed violations of human rights by detaining the second respondent and the said Rajammal at Tallakulam Police Station and caused bodily injuries on the second respondent with lathi beating. 3. Immediately after release from the police station, the second respondent got admitted as an inpatient and informed the Doctor as to how the injuries were caused. A complaint was given before the State Human Rights Commission and it was taken on file as S.H.R.C. No. 6327 of 2003. After notice, the appellant and other police officials, appeared before the State Human Rights Commission and also contested the matter. After enquiry, the State Human Rights Commission came to the conclusion that the second respondent sustained human right violations in the hands of the appellant and other police officials for which the State Human Rights Commission relied upon the treatment given to the second respondent as proved by the evidence of P.W.4 - Dr. Subramaniam, Senior Civil Surgeon attached to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. In Ex. P.1 - Wound Certificate issued by P.W.4 - Senior Civil Surgeon, the following injuries were found, which have been incorporated in the order of the State Human Rights Commission, thus:- "1. Complain of pain in both calf muscles. 2. Complain of pain in the Right fore-arm. 3. Complain of pain in the Right ear. 4. Diffuse tenderness over both calf muscles is present. 5. Diastole circulation is present. 6. Diffuse tenderness over Right wrist and hand is present. 7. Diffuse tenderness from mid third of right fore-arm is present." 4. Complain of pain in both calf muscles. 2. Complain of pain in the Right fore-arm. 3. Complain of pain in the Right ear. 4. Diffuse tenderness over both calf muscles is present. 5. Diastole circulation is present. 6. Diffuse tenderness over Right wrist and hand is present. 7. Diffuse tenderness from mid third of right fore-arm is present." 4. Relying upon the said Wound Certificate and also evidence of the second respondent, the State Human Rights Commission categorically came to the conclusion that there was human right violations, since the evidence of P.W.1 was cogent and convincing that on all four days, the appellant visited Tallakulam Police Station and caused human right violations on the second respondent for the purpose of enquiry. These are all the findings reached by the State Human Rights Commission based on evidence both oral and documentary and came to the factual conclusion that there was a human right violations committed by the appellant by detaining the second respondent for four days and caused injuries on person with stick. Therefore, the State Human Rights Commission directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the second respondent at the first instance and thereafter, recover the same out of the salary payable to the appellant. 5. The learned Single Judge went into the details of the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission and confirmed the order by extracting and relying upon the order given by the State Human Rights Commission. Paragraph 5 of the order reads as follows: "5. However, this court is not inclined to accept the challenge made by the petitioner. On the other hand, the Commission had made a threadbare analysis of evidence placed before it and rejected the case put forth by the petitioner, in rejecting the contentions of the petitioner, the Commission recorded the following findings, which reads as follows: "The bone of contention on the side of the respondent was that the complainant Paulthai appeared before RW.1 Dr. Selvarani on 28.4.03 and obtained Ex. R.1 medical certificate for 15 days' leave from 28.4.03 and if really, she was kept in Thallakulam P.S., there was no chance of getting Ex. Selvarani on 28.4.03 and obtained Ex. R.1 medical certificate for 15 days' leave from 28.4.03 and if really, she was kept in Thallakulam P.S., there was no chance of getting Ex. R.1, we should also verify Ex.P1 - wound certificate issued PW.4-Senior Civil Surgeon which reveals that at 8.30 p.m. on 28.4.03 and 29.04.03, she was beaten by a known person with stick inside Thallakulam P.S., Madurai. This Commission have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure under Section 13 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Therefore, this Commission has got every power to consider both the documents in proper perspective and come to the conclusion. The wound certificate issued by P.W.4 throws more light on the question in dispute. P.W.1 Paulthai appeared before the doctor at 11.25 p.m. on 30.04.03 and she was admitted as in-patient for treatment for the injuries found on her person and she had informed the doctor as to how the injuries were caused. Per contra, Ex. R1 is a medical certificate enabling PW.1 to avail medical leave from 28.4.03. In the circumstances of the case, this Commission has to give more weight to Ex. P1. Consequently, the arguments on the side of the second respondent has to be brushed aside. PW2 has also stated that on 28.4.03 at 8.00 p.m. he had seen the second respondent bearing the complainant. PW3 Shanthi has deposed that on 28.4.03, when she went to the police station, she heard the cry of Paulthai, the complainant herein. From the evidence available on record, it can be concluded that the second respondent Tmt. Shobana, Sub Inspector of Police had committed hum rights violation against the complainant Paulthai. When the complainant was examined, she has not stated that the first respondent Tmt. Hema Pramila, Assistant Commissioner of Police, has committed human rights violation. In the cross examination, she has stated that on 27.4.03, she did not meet the first respondent. On those four days, she met the first respondent only once and at that time, she had not committed any violation of human rights. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence against R1. R3 Chandrasekaran, Head Constable No. 1042 has denied the allegations. In the cross examination, she has stated that on 27.4.03, she did not meet the first respondent. On those four days, she met the first respondent only once and at that time, she had not committed any violation of human rights. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence against R1. R3 Chandrasekaran, Head Constable No. 1042 has denied the allegations. Though PW1 had stated in the complaint that one policeman fisted on her cheek resulting in bleeding, she had neither made the said allegation before this Commission nor that R3 was responsible for such violation. There is absolutely no implication of R3 in her evidence. Hence R3 is also not liable for violation of human rights. From the foregoing discussions, it is clear that R2 Tmt. Shobana, Sub Inspector of Police is liable for the Commission of human rights violation for detaining PW.1 Paulthai from 27.4.03 to 30.4.03 and causing injury on the person of PW.1 Paulthai." 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant would argue that as per Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, one year period has been prescribed as limitation whereas the order has been passed by the State Human Rights Commission on 03.10.2006. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the proceedings are hit by Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. However, the said contention is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the complaint was given in September 2003 and taken on file as S.H.R.C. No. 6327 of 2003 and the enquiry commenced from that onwards. Therefore, there is no question of application of Section36 of the Act. Therefore, this writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. In any event, the State Human Rights Commission based on the evidence came to the factual conclusion that there was a human right violations caused on the second respondent. Therefore, only a negligible amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) has been imposed on the appellant. 8. Further, it is also brought to our notice that the second respondent is dead. Already, a Division Bench of this Court in T. Loganathan vs. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, (2007) 7 MLJ 1067, has given a direction in paragraph 16, which is extracted hereunder:- "16. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) has been imposed on the appellant. 8. Further, it is also brought to our notice that the second respondent is dead. Already, a Division Bench of this Court in T. Loganathan vs. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, (2007) 7 MLJ 1067, has given a direction in paragraph 16, which is extracted hereunder:- "16. In the light of the above, the grievance projected by the writ petitioner has no substance and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. As the writ petition is dismissed, there is no impediment for the State Government in implementing the order of the SHRC. As the writ petitioner is under the services of the State, we direct the Government to implement the orders of the SHRC and recover the amount from the writ petitioner and pay the same to the husband of the second respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The State will also consider making the necessary amendments in the Act so as to provide necessary power to execute the orders of the SHRC. A copy of this order will also be marked to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, for further actions and compliance of our order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition will also stand dismissed." 9. In view of the above, the Government is directed to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and pay the said amount to the legal representatives of the second respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.