{"id":93356,"date":"2004-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004"},"modified":"2016-06-03T12:56:49","modified_gmt":"2016-06-03T07:26:49","slug":"s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 04\/03\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM\n\nWRIT PETITION No.14879 of 1994\n\nS.Meena                                                        ..  Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   represented by its Secretary,\n   Home Department,\n   Fort St. George,\n   Madras - 600 009.\n\n2. The Director General of Police,\n   D.G.P.Office,\n   Mylapore,\n   Madras - 600 004.\n\n3. The Collector of Madras,\n   Chepauk,\n   Madras-600 005.\n\n4. The Personal Assistant (General)\n   to the Collector of Madras,\n   Chepauk,\n   Madras-600 005.\n\n5. The Commissioner of Police,\n   Egmore,\n   Madras-600 008.\n\n6. The Inspector of Police,\n   E-2, Royapettah Police Station,\n   Madras-600 014.\n\n7. Chandrasekaran\n\n8. Nicholas\n\n9. Chandran\n\n10. Nagarajan\n\n11. Ganesan\n\n12. The Superintendent,\n    Government Royapettah Hospital,\n    Madras-600 014.                                     ..      Respondents.\n\n\n                Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India\npraying for the issue of a writ of mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner         :  Mr.C.Vijayakumar.\n\nFor respondents 1 to 6 :  Mr.V.Raghupathy,\n                        Govt.  Pleader.\n\nFor respondents 7 to 11 :  Mr.S.Manimaran\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                The  petitioner,  the  mother  of one Wilson who allegedly met
\nwith his death while in custody of the Police, seeks for the issue of  a  writ
\nof  mandamus  to direct the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,0 00\/- as
\ncompensation for the custodial assault, torture and murder of  Wilson  and  to
\ndirect  respondents  1  to  5  to  prosecute  respondents 7 to 11 for the said
\noffences and to direct respondents 1,2 and 5 to initiate  proper  disciplinary
\naction against them and for further reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  The petitioner contends that she is a Class IV employee in
\nthe Postal  Department  and  her  husband had died 11 years back.  He had one
\ndaughter and the deceased son Wilson.  Her son was doing screen  printing  and
\nhe was 24 years old at the time of his death.  On 21.6.1993 when she asked her
\nson  to  have  his  dinner,he told her that he would return soon and went out.
\nBut he failed to return till 10.00 P.M.  The petitioner and her daughter  went
\nto sleep after keeping food for her son.  Subsequently she was informed by one
\nNalini  who is the sister of the landlord of the petitioner and whose house is
\nsituate at Gangai Amman Kovil Street,  that  on  the  night  of  21.6.1993  on
\nhearing some shouting in front of her house, she came out of the house and saw
\nrespondents 7  to 11 brutally attacking the petitioner’s son Wilson.  The said
\npolice officials surrounded Wilson and caught hold of him near the  water  tap
\nsituated at  Gangai  Amman  lane  and  tied  his hands with lungi.  Wilson was
\nattacked with long knife and grievous injuries were caused.  The  said  Nalini
\nand  other  residents  nearby  were direct eye-witnesses to the brutal attack.
\nWilson cried that he was innocent and he has not committed any mistake.   Even
\nafter that police officials did not spare him and they continued attacking him
\nall over  his  body  causing  grievous injuries.  He was also abused in vulgar
\nlanguage and was continued to be attacked.  While he was lying on the road the
\npolice officials kicked him with their boots on his chest and abdomen and then
\nhe became unconscious and was dragged on  the  road.    The  police  officials
\ncaused  cut  injuries  on  the  leg  of  Wilson  as  well as all over his body
\nattacking him with  the  handle  of  the  knife.    This  happened  for  about
\nhalf-an-hour  in  the  open  street  and after that he was taken to the Police
\nStation.  According to the petitioner, she was unaware of the incident as  she
\nand her  daughter  were  sleeping.   Her landlord’s son Senthil knocked at the
\ndoor on the night of 21.6.1993 and  informed  the  petitioner  of  the  brutal
\nassault on  her  son.    She  was also informed about his having been taken to
\nRoyapettah Police Station.  One Mohan, petitioner’s son’s friend also came  to
\nthe  house and told that he had seen the police dragging her son to the Police
\nStation.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  The petitioner thereupon requested Mohan to help  her  for
\ntaking her  son  on  bail from Royapettah Police Station.  He left immediately
\nstating that he would go to the Police Station and return and inform her.  But
\nfor a long time he did not herefore, she  obtained  the  help  of  Dampachari,
\nbrother  of the petitioner’s landlord and went to Royapettah Police Station at
\n2.30 A.M.  22.6.1993.  She waited outside while  Dampachari  went  inside  and
\nenquired.   He returned back and said that the police officials did not reveal
\nanything and that he could not find the petitioner’s son.    Dampachari  asked
\nher  to return to her house and assured that they would be able to get further
\ninformation in the morning.  Therefore, she had to return to the  house.    At
\nabout 4.00  A.M.   on 22.6.1993 the said Mohan again came back and he told the
\npetitioner that he saw Wilson at the Royapettah Police Station  at  1.30  A.M.
\nHe  was lying in one corner of the Police Station and that he saw cut injuries
\non both the legs and abrasions all over his body.  He was  also  shouting  for
\nhelp and  requested  Mohan to take him to hospital.  After a short while again
\nhe went to the Police Station.    The  Inspector  of  Thousand  Lights  Police
\nStation,  came  there  and  when  he saw the injured person, he shouted at the
\nConstables and asked them to take Wilson  to  the  hospital.    At  2.00  A.M.
\nWilson  was taken to Royapettah hospital in a Cycle-Rickshaw by two constables
\nfollowed by Mohan.  In the hospital, certain stitches  were  put  on  the  cut
\ninjuries on  both  legs of Wilson.  X-Ray was also taken and Wilson complained
\nthat he was experiencing acute pain on his private parts,  abdomen  and  chest
\nand he  was  unable  to  bear the pain.  However, the police did not bother to
\ngive proper treatment or have any concern  about  the  critical  condition  of
\nWilson.  At  3.30  A.M.    he  was  brought  back  to  the Police Station in a
\nCycle-Rickshaw.  Though Mohan followed Wilson to the Police  Station,  he  was
\nnot  allowed  inside  the  Police Station and he saw the seventh respondent in
\nPolice Station.  When Mohan had informed the petitioner of the said facts, the
\npetitioner and her daughter cried and requested Mohan to help them  to  go  to
\nthe Police Station.  As they were informed by Mohan that Police will not allow
\nthem, they went only at 5.30 A.M.  along with Dampachari.  Dampachari informed
\nthat Wilson  was lying like a snail with both legs and hands bandaged.  He was
\nunable to stretch his legs and hands and when Dampachari  tried  to  make  him
\nsit, Wilson asked for water and Dampachari went out and brought Limca and they
\ngave Limca  to  Wilson.  The petitioner cried and the police personnel shouted
\nat her and asked them to leave.  They had to come out of  the  Police  Station
\nand they  were  not  allowed to be with Wilson.  Therefore, the petitioner and
\nDampachari returned to the house at 6.30 A.M.  She requested Dampachari to  go
\nand see  Wilson in the Police Station.  She also went to her office to arrange
\nfor bail with the help of co-employee at about 8.30 A.M.  But while she was in
\nthe office Senthil, Dilli and Sankar came to the office and informed her  that
\nher son  had  died in the Police Station at about 9.00 A.M.  and that his body
\nhad been taken to the Royapettah Hospital.  When  she  went  to  the  hospital
\nthere was a  huge crowd from her area.  Dampachari was also present there.  On
\n22.6.1993 at about 1.00 p.m.  she sent a telegraphic complaint to the  Hon’ble
\nChief Minister  informing about the illegal torture and death of her son.  She
\ndemanded a detailed probe and suspension of the  policemen.    The  petitioner
\nfurther stated that in view of the happenings, the public in the area gathered
\nin  front  of the Police Station and demanded action against the guilty police
\nofficials.  But to the shock and surprise of  the  petitioner  till  date,  no
\nworthwhile action had been taken against guilty persons.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   The  petitioner  further  states  that  after postmortem,
\nWilson’s body was handed over at 7.00 p.m.  on 22.6.1993.  Several journalists
\ncame to the petitioner’s house and took photographs and when the bandages were
\nremoved they saw several stitches on Wilson and on his private parts.    There
\nwere abrasions  all over his body and his abdomen was contused.  The right leg
\nthigh was fissured.  It is further stated that Wilson’s funeral took place  on
\n23.6.1993 at about 4.00 p.m.  The shops in the area were closed condemning the
\npolice  atrocities  and  more than 1000 people participated in the funeral and
\nmore than 100 policemen were posted for bandobust.  The petitioner states that
\nseveral journals and papers published the news of  death  of  Wilson  and  the
\npolice  wantonly  and  falsely fed news to the press branding the petitioner’s
\nson as a rowdy in order to suppress  the  custodial  death.    The  petitioner
\nfurther states  that  her son had no previous bad antecedents.  The petitioner
\nfurther states that respondents 7  to  11  were  the  main  culprits  who  had
\nbrutally attacked  Wilson.    It  was  a blatant violation of human rights and
\npolice authorities had totally suppressed  the  cause  of  death.    When  she
\napproached  the  hospital  authorities  and  requested for a certified copy of
\npost-mortem certificate she was not given a proper reply.  Therefore, she sent
\na registered letter on 11.10 .1993 to the Assistant Medical Officer to issue a
\ncertificate of post-mortem report.  However, the authorities failed  to  issue
\nthe certificate.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  The petitioner further submits that even though the fourth
\nrespondent, Personal Assistant to the Collector of Madras, conducted a enquiry
\nunder Section  176 Cr.P.C.  and under Clause 145 of the Police Standing Order,
\ntill this date, the assailants have not been prosecuted.    In  spite  of  the
\npetitioner  having  approached  respondents 3 and 4 to know about the stage of
\nthe enquiry, she was not given any information.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  The petitioner further submits that Wilson  was  her  only
\nson  and  her husband having died 10 years back, she and her daughter lost the
\nonly support and they were facing extreme mental and physical sufferings.  Her
\nson was doing screen printing work and was earning about Rs.2,000\/- per month.
\nTherefore, the Government was  liable  to  pay  compensation.    None  of  her
\ncomplaints and representations had been enquired into and there was absolutely
\nno positive response from the respondents.  Hence, the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   In  the  counter  filed  by  the  Commissioner of Police,
\nGreater Chennai, on behalf of respondents 1 to 7,  it  is  contended  that  an
\nenquiry  was  conducted  under  Clause 145 of the Police Standing Order by the
\nfourth respondent and an enquiry report was submitted on 19.8.1994,  directing
\nto  launch  a  criminal  prosecution and also simultaneous departmental action
\nagainst the five police  officials  who  were  involved  in  the  case.    The
\nGovernment also  sanctioned Rs.50,000\/- to the petitioner as compensation.  It
\nis further stated that as per F.I.R.  in Crime No.860 of 1993 on 21.6.1993  at
\n23.30 hours, the crew of P.T.C.  bus gave a complaint to E.2 Royapettah Police
\nStation  stating  that  four  persons  armed with deadly weapons were creating
\ndisturbances near Ajantha hotel.  Immediately  constable  Ganesan  along  with
\nSub-Inspector of  Police, E.2 Police Station and party rushed to the spot.  On
\nseeing the Police party, the unruly elements ran towards  Gangai  Amman  Kovil
\nStreet, one  among  them being Wilson.  He jumped over some iron materials and
\nsustained injuries.  When the  police  went  near  him,  Wilson  attempted  to
\nassault  them with a long ‘Aruval’ of 2-1\/2 feet length which he had with him.
\nIn order to protect themselves, the police used  minimum  force  to  overpower
\nhim, seized the ‘Aruval’ and brought him to the Police Station at 01.00 hours.
\nGanesan registered  a  case in Crime No.860 of 1993.  The accused was found to
\nhave sustained injuries and had also consumed alcohol.  Therefore, he was sent
\nto  Royapettah  Hospital  for  treatment   and   for   obtaining   drunkenness
\ncertificate.   He  was  given treatment and a drunkenness certificate was also
\nissued.  Wilson was lodged in the lock up on 22.6.1993.  At about 10.00  hours
\nhe  complained  giddiness  and  therefore, he was sent to the hospital through
\nP.C.2715.  On his arrival at the hospital he was pronounced  as  dead  by  the
\nMedical Officer.\n<\/p>\n
                8.   In  terms  of  the  report  of the fourth respondent, the
\ndepartmental action was initiated against the concerned police  personnel  and
\ncriminal  prosecution  was  also  initiated  before X Metropolitan Magistrate,
\nSaidapet.  Therefore, the allegation that no action had been taken against the
\npolice officials, was not correct.  The case was  committed  to  the  Sessions
\nCourt, Chennai, and on enquiry by the VI Additional Court, Chenai, by judgment
\ndated 5.8.1998  the  accused  were  acquitted  of  the  charges.    The Public
\nProsecutor of the High Court had opined that it was not a fit case for  filing
\nan appeal.    Thus  all  the  necessary  actions  have  been  taken  properly.
\nTherefore, the allegations to the contra were not admitted and  there  was  no
\nnecessity to spread any false news against the petitioner’s son.\n<\/p>\n
                9.    It  is  further  stated  that  departmental  action  was
\ninitiated against S.Chandrasekaran, S.Leavance, N.Chandran, s.Ganesan  and  M.
\nNagarajan.   They  were  charged  under  Rule  3(b)  of  the  Tamil Nadu Poice
\nSubordinate Service (D & A)Rules for the criminal misconduct in having  caused
\ndeath of  Wilson.    The  Sub  Inspector and four others were awarded with the
\npunishment of reduction in pay by two stages for  two  years  with  cumulative
\neffect on  2.6.1999  by  the Commissioner of Police.  The punishment was given
\neffect to and on the completion of the period of punishment promotion has also
\nbeen awarded.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  The said officials also filed O.A.Nos.3649,  3650,  3678,
\n4147 and  4150  of  1999  before the State Administrative Tribunal.  The State
\nAdministrative Tribunal allowed all the  applications  on  4.10.2001  and  set
\naside  the  impugned  orders and remitted the same back to the Commissioner of
\nPolice for reviewing carefully in the light of the  judgment  of  the  Supreme
\ncourt in M.PAUL  ANTONY  v.    BHARAT  GOLD  MINES  LTD.    and<\/a> in view of the
\nacquittal given by the VI Additional Sessions Judge.  The question  of  filing
\nan appeal against the order of the Tribunal was examined by the Government and
\nafter due consideration it was felt that it was not a fit case for appeal.  It
\nis  further  stated that the Review Application Nos.31 to 35 were filed by the
\nsaid officials and the Tribunal by its  order  dated  22.1.2002  modified  the
\njudgment  cancelling  earlier  orders of remitting back to the Commissioner of
\nPolice for review.  As such  the  orders  of  punishment  which  were  earlier
\nawarded departmentally,  have been set aside.  In consultation with the office
\nof D.G.P.  the punishments awarded earlier were cancelled and the reduction of
\npay already given effect to, to  the  said  individuals  were  ordered  to  be
\nrestored  in  the  position  which  prevailed  at the time before implementing
\npunishment.  Hence, there were no merits in the writ petition and the same  be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   S.Chandrasekaran,  the  seventh  respondent  has filed a
\ncounter on behalf of himself and respondents 8 to 11.  According to  him,  the
\nvarious  allegations  contained  in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
\npetition, were false.  On 21.6.1993 at  11.45  p.m.    while  he  himself  and
\nrespondents  8  and  9  were  ready  to  leave  the  Police  Station, the 11th
\nrespondent informed him that the crew of P.T.C.  bus had stopped the bus  with
\npassengers  in  front of the Police Station and had informed him about four or
\nfive unruly elements armed with ‘patta’ knives were terrorising the public and
\nindulging in  violence  near  Ajantha  hotel.    11th   respondent   requested
\nrespondents  8  and  9  to assist him in controlling he violence in the public
\nroad and to apprehend the culprits.  The  Inspector  of  Police  and  the  Sub
\nInspector  attached to the law and order wing were not available in the Police
\nStation.  When they reached there they found  four  persons  including  Wilson
\narmed  with ‘patta’ knife and in a drunken mood were terrorising and indulging
\nin violence near Ajantha hotel.  As they tried to apprehend them, all the four
\npersons ran towards different directions with their weapons.  He stood at  the
\nscene  and  was  pacifying the public who had gathered there complaining about
\natrocities of the rowdy elements.  The Police could apprehend only one  person
\nviz., Wilson  with  his  knife  and  brought  him  near Ajantha Hotel.  He was
\ninformed by the other policemen, he ran into Gangai Amman Kovil Street and  he
\nfell  on  the  old  tin  scrap  materials  and  iron  rods and sustained minor
\ninjuries.  When the policemen went near  him,  he  threatened  the  police  to
\nassault them.   However,  he  was  overpowered and caught.  At about 1.00 a.m.
\nall of them returned to the Police station.  As he found some injuries on  the
\nlegs  and  hands of Wilson, he asked the 11th respondent to send Wilson to the
\nhospital.  Thereafter, he and respondents 8 and 9 left the  Station  on  duty.
\nHe again came back to the Royapettah Police Station and went to his house.  He
\ncame to know from the 11th respondent that a case has been registered in Crime
\nNo.860 of  1993.    11th  respondent  had  also sent the injured Wilson to the
\nGovernment Royapettah hospital for treatment.  He was  treated  by  Dr.Khadri,
\nC.M.O.  and  drunkenness  certificate  was  issued by Dr.Thirunavukkarasu.  At
\nthat time Wilson was in good  condition  and  was  speaking  with  the  police
\nofficials.   He  also  came to know that about 7.00 A.M., on the following day
\n(22.6.19 93), Wilson was in good condition.  At about  7.30  A.M.    Anandraj,
\nSub-Inspector had  enquired  about  the  night  incident.   At about 8.00 A.M.
\nSivaraman, Inspector (L & O) also enquired Wilson pertaining to  Crime  No.860
\nof  1993  and  also  got  the names of the other accused included in the night
\nincident near Ajantha hotel.  At about 9.30 a.m.  one Dhambachari  along  with
\nanother  Constable who were known to the petitioner came to the Police Station
\nfor the release of Wilson on bail.  However, the Sub Inspector  informed  them
\nthat  he  has to send Wilson for remand and asked them to move for bail later.
\nAt about 10.00 a.m.  Anandraj, Sub-Inspector informed  Sivaraman  that  Wilson
\nfelt  giddiness  and  Anandraj  sent  Wilson  to  the  Government hospital for
\ntreatment.  When Wilson arrived at the hospital, he was declared dead  by  the
\nDoctor.   The  matter was informed to the higher officials by the Inspector of
\nPolice.  Sivaraman also personally informed through a  report  to  the  fourth
\nrespondent for the purpose of conducting an enquiry under Clause 145 of P.S.O.\n<\/p>\n
                12.   The deponent has denied the allegations in the affidavit
\nthat respondents 7 to 11 were involved in the custodial assault,  torture  and
\nmurder of  petitioner’  son.    The deponent has also referred to the criminal
\nproceedings which ended in acquittal and the  departmental  proceedings  which
\nalso  ended in their favour as already referred to in the counter filed by the
\nCommissioner.  The deponent contends that the entire allegations made  by  the
\npetitioner in  the  affidavit  were  baseless  and motivated.  In the evidence
\nbefore the Criminal Court the alleged presence of Nalini,  Kumar,  Rnganayaki,
\nMaragatham  and  Gajendran were found to be false though they were examined as
\nprosecution witnesses.  They did not support the case of the petitioner.   The
\ndeponent was not personally aware of the allegations stated in paragraph Nos.3\n<\/p>\n
(f) and  3(g)  in  the  affidavit.   He had left the Police Station along with
\nrespondents 8 and 9 for apprehending another accused while  the  Law  &  Order
\nPolice took  charge  of  the accused.  The allegation that the victim had been
\nbrutally attacked with knife and was murdered by police  officials  was  false
\nand denied.  The post-mortem certificate was clear to the effect that injuries
\nfound  on  the  body of the petitioner’ son were simple in nature and the same
\ncould not have caused the death.  Respondents were  not  responsible  for  the
\ndeath of   the  petitioner’s  son.    The  petitioner  was  making  false  and
\nexaggerated allegations.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  made   elaborate
\nsubmissions  on  the  facts  and  circumstances  which led to the death of the
\npetitioner’s son and contended that the facts stated in the affidavit relating
\nto the arrest of the deceased and the happenings in the  Police  Station  have
\nnot been  effectively  denied.   Even going by the facts stated in the counter
\naffidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 7 to 11, though  the  victim  was
\nsaid  to have sustained some injuries by falling over scrap and iron materials
\nwhile he was chased by the police even before he was  brought  to  the  Police
\nStation,  it  is  clearly  stated that victim was in good condition and he was
\nspeaking with the police officials.  Therefore, it was the  responsibility  of
\nthe  respondents  to  explain  as  to  how  the  victim had sustained fracture
\ninjuries met with his death.\n<\/p>\n
                14.  Learned counsel further contends that though it  is  true
\nthat  the  individual  respondents  were  acquitted  by the Criminal Court and
\ngenerally found not guilty  in  the  departmental  proceedings  also,  it  was
\nobvious  that the witnesses have been won over by the respondents being police
\nofficials and the witnesses had been made to turn hostile.  A perusal  of  the
\nreport of  the P.A.  to the Collector dated 28.1.1994 would reveal the correct
\nfacts relating to the incident.  Learned counsel contends that the report  had
\nspelt very clearly the manner in which the deceased had met with his death due
\nto  the  high-handed action of the party\/respondents and how they had indulged
\neven in manipulation of the records and obtained false medical certificates as
\nthough the victim was intoxicated.  I am not referring to the  submissions  of
\nlearned  counsel for the petitioner in the context of the said Report in order
\nto avoid  repetition  and  I  will  deal  with  the  findings  in  the  Report
\nsubsequently.  Learned counsel further contended that the entire circumstances
\nclearly  establish  that  the  victim had sustained fatal injuries as could be
\nseen from the  post-mortem  report  only  due  to  man-handling,  torture  and
\nviolence while  in  police  custody.    The  victim  was  the  only son of the
\npetitioner who herself is a widow with a daughter to look  after.    Thus  the
\npetitioner had lost her only hope for her future life and hence requires to be
\nadequately compensated.    Reliance  was also placed on some of the rulings of
\nthe Supreme Court in support of maintainability of the claim for  compensation
\nin a writ proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  Mr.V.Raghupathy, learned Government Pleader contends that
\nthe  Government  had  done everything in a proper and impartial manner and had
\ntaken prompt follow-up action.  On receipt of the report under Clause  145  of
\nP.S.O.,  both  departmental as well as Criminal proceedings were set in motion
\nagainst the assailants.  But the nature of evidence was such that the ultimate
\ndecision in both the proceedings went in favour  of  the  alleged  assailants.
\nEven  so,  the  petitioner  was  paid  a  sum  of Rs.50,000\/- as compensation.
\nLearned Government Pleader also fairly stated  that  any  fair  compensatio  n
\ncould  be  fixed  by  the  Court and he would submit that even though strictly
\nspeaking the petitioner should be directed to go before the  Civil  Court,  in
\nhis assessment, a further sum of Rs.50,000\/- will be reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  Learned counsel for respondents 7 to 11 after reiterating
\nthe  factual  submissions  in  the  counter, submitted that the allegations of
\nassault on the victim while in  custody  was  totally  false.    The  injuries
\nsustained by the victim were only due to accidental fall on the metalic debris
\nof  building  materials  while  he  was running away when he was chased by the
\npolice.  The medical evidence relating to the nature of the  injuries  clearly
\nestablishes the  version  of  the  respondents.    The  respondents  were only
\ndischarging their lawful duty while apprehending the victim, who behaved  like
\na rowdy  in  a  public  place  creating  law  and  order  situation.  Both the
\ndepartmental proceedings and the prosecution before  the  Criminal  Court  had
\nended in their favour and they had been acquitted honourably.  Hence the above
\nwrit petition has to be held as infructuous.  The evidence of the Doctor shows
\nthat the  victim  suffered  from adverse heart condition.  Therefore, it would
\nnot be proper to blame the respondents for unexpected death of the victim.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  Learned counsel further contended that the entire episode
\nof assault while in custody was totally false as found in the evidence  before
\nthe Criminal Court.  The statement recorded in the enquiry under Clause 145 of
\nP.S.O.   was  under  threat and coercion and the report had been rendered in a
\nbiased manner.  In short, there was absolutely no  basis  for  the  allegation
\nrelating  to  the  alleged  assault  or  negligence in giving treatment to the
\nvictim.  They were only performing their lawful duties in  a  perfectly  legal
\nmanner and  the  version  of  the  law-breakers  deserve  to be rejected.  The
\nverdict  in  the  Criminal  Court  and  the  departmental   proceedings   have
\nestablished their innocence.\n<\/p>\n
                18.   I have considered the submissions of both sides, perused
\nthe relevant records inclusive of the report under Clause 145 of P.S.O.\n<\/p>\n
                19.  There is no dispute over the fact that the victim was  in
\npolice custody  when  he  died.    Even according to the police at about 12.00
\nmidnight on 21\/22-6-1993 the victim was apprehended and taken  to  the  police
\nstation at 1.00 A.M.    He died at about 10.00 A.M.  on 22.6.1993.  In between
\nthe said few hours what had happened is the issue which requires decision.\n<\/p>\n
                20.  The version of the petitioner\/mother, is that her son  is
\na  law abiding citizen and was not involved in any crime at any time till then
\nand that she was informed by one Nalini that at about 10.30 p.  m.  on hearing
\nnoise, he came out of her house at Royapettah.  She had heard shouts  and  saw
\nrespondents 7  to  9  and the victim was being brutally attacked by them.  The
\nhands of the victim were tied with ” lungy” and he was repeatedly  beaten  and
\nkicked  even  while  the  victim wailed repeatedly claiming to be innocent and
\nthat he had not done anything wrong.  Even so he was repeatedly beaten and was
\nsubjected to vulgar abuses.  He was alleged to have been assaulted  for  about
\nhalf-an-hour and  taken  to  Royapettah  Police  Station.   Assault on him was
\nalleged to have continued at the Police Station also.  Though  the  petitioner
\nclaims  to  have  gone  to  the Police Station with one Dhampachari and waited
\noutside the Police station, she was informed by Dhampacahri  that  the  victim
\nwas not to  be found in the Police Station.  At 4.00 A.M.  she was informed by
\nMohan that he had seen the victim in the Police station  at  about  1.30  A.M.
\nand he was lying in one corner of the Police Station with cut injuries and the
\nvictim had  requested  Mohan  to take him to the hospital.  Thereafter, he was
\ntaken to Royapettah hospital in a Cycle Rickshaw by two constables.  Again  he
\nwas brought back  to  the  Police Station.  At about 5.30 A.M.  the petitioner
\nwent to the Police Station along with Dhampachari and found the  victim  in  a
\nvery bad condition.  They were threatened by the police to leave the place and
\nthe petitioner  had  to go her house.  In the morning she received information
\nthat her son had died at about 9.00 A.M.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  The version of the Police is that at about 11.45 P.M.  on
\n21.6.1993, information was received from the crew of a P.T.C.  bus  which  was
\nparked  outside  the  Police  Station,  that they had informed the Police that
\nunruly elements with “patta” knives were terrorising the public  near  Ajantha
\nhotel and  therefore,  they  proceeded to the spot at midnight.  They saw four
\npersons including the victim, were armed with ‘patta’ knives and in a  drunken
\nmood were  terrorising  the  public.   On seeing the police, they tried to run
\naway and the police were able to apprehend only the victim  while  others  ran
\naway.   He  ran  towards  Gangai  Amman Kovil Street and fell on old tin scrap
\nmaterials, iron rods and thus sustained minor injuries.   He  was  overpowered
\nand taken  to the Police Station.  The seventh respondent, who had alone filed
\nthe counter would further state that he went away and returned  only  at  5.30
\nA.M.  and  again  went  to  the house.  He ha d gathered details from the 11th
\nrespondent who had informed him about registering the case and of having given
\ntreatment to the victim at the hospital at 2.15 A.M.  The victim was  in  good
\ncondition  in the morning and it was only at 10.00 A.M., the victim complained
\ngiddiness and he was sent to the hospital.  But  when  he  was  taken  to  the
\nhospital he was declared dead by the Doctor.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  I have given utmost consideration of the submissions made
\nby  both  parties  and  analysed the facts with the care and seriousness which
\nnature  of  the  issue  deserves  and  I  am  inclined  to   find   that   the
\nparty\/respondents  are  squarely  responsible  for the death of the victim for
\nreasons as elaborated in the discussion below:-\n<\/p>\n
                23.  It is true that the Criminal Court found that the charges
\nagainst the police officials were not established.  The said findings  by  the
\nCriminal  Court also resulted in setting aside even the minor punishment which
\nwas awarded against them in the departmental proceedings.  A  perusal  of  the
\nevidence before the Criminal Court shows that all the witnesses connected with
\nthe incident,  direct and circumstantial, had turned hostile.  The proceedings
\nthus sadly reflect the prevailing pitiable and shocking level of the  criminal
\njustice system  in  our  country.    The  Supreme  Court in some of the recent
\njudgments, had expressed their dismay about the situation arising out  of  the
\nwitnesses turning  hostile.   It is a shameful fact that more than 75 per cent
\nof the Criminal cases end in  acquittal  mainly  due  to  the  apathy  of  the
\nwitnesses  to  come  to  the  Court  to give evidence or the witnesses turning
\nhostile or due to unreasonable delay in the trial.  The witnesses turn hostile
\ndue to several factors such as threat, coercion, inducement by several  means,
\nbegging for  mercy,  bribery  etc.    The  resultant  situation  is shocking
\nmurderers, dacoits, thugs and rapists who indulge in day-light  atrocities  go
\nscot-free.   With  the  abolition  of  the committal procedure, prosecution of
\nerring witness for perjury has become impossible.  It is high  time  that  the
\nframers  of  Criminal  law  envisage  a system by which fearless atmosphere is
\nensured for witnesses and obtaining statements from witnesses on oath  at  the
\nearliest  point  of  time  before  a  judicial forum be made mandatory so that
\naction for perjury, false evidence and suppression of evidence could be  taken
\nagainst them.    The  prevailing  proportion  of  acquittal  is  a  mockery of
\nenforcement  of  criminal  law  and  maintenance  of  law  and  order  to  the
\nfrustration  of honest police officials who risk their lives to track down the
\noffenders.  But ironically in  this  case,  the  social  malady  of  witnesses
\nturning  hostile  is  used  by  the  police  personnel  as a shield to protect
\nthemselves from any action against their own gruesome and inhuman conduct.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  The Supreme Court and the various High Courts being alive
\nto this scenario, have repeatedly held that the degree of proof,  quality  and
\nappreciation   of   evidence   in  Criminal  proceedings  are  different  from
\ndepartmental or civil proceedings.  While  in  a  criminal  proceeding,  proof
\nbeyond  reasonable  doubt  is  mandatory in a civil or departmental proceeding
\nwhat is required is  to  establish  preponderance  of  probabilities.    In  a
\ncriminal  proceeding,  burden  of  proof  is  always  one sided namely, on the
\nprosecution except in rare offences protected by statutory presumption.    But
\nin  civil  proceedings  the burden is always mutual and shifts from one to the
\nother.  The burden is rarely  one  sided  such  as  presumptions  specifically
\nenvisaged under  the  specific  statutes.    Therefore, in this writ petition,
\nwhich is a petition for claim of compensation, reference to the result of  the
\ncriminal proceedings  would  be  irrelevant.    It  would not be prudent to be
\ncarried away by the fact of witness having turned hostile before the  Criminal
\nCourt.   The  only  emphasis  by learned counsel for the party\/ respondents is
\nthat they have all been acquitted by  the  Criminal  Court.    In  this  case,
\nfortunately for  the  petitioner,  there  is  a  Report  by  the  P.A.  to the
\nCollector of Madras under Clause 145  of  P.S.O.,  on  an  enquiry  which  was
\ndirected by  the Government to be conducted.  The value to be attached to such
\nreport in civil proceedings  or  in  a  petition  under  Article  226  of  the
\nConstitution  of  India  has  been  clearly  spelt out by the Supreme Court in
\nKHATRI (IV) v.  STATE OF BIHAR<\/a> (1981 (2) S.  C.C., 493).  In  that  case,  the
\npetitioners  who  were  under-trial  prisoners  moved  the Supreme Court under
\nArticle 32 of the Constitution alleging that they were blinded by the  members
\nof the  State  Police  and  thus  their right to life was violated.  Under the
\nprovisions of the Police Act, the State Government directed  a  Senior  Police
\nOfficer to  investigate  into the matter.  The Officer submitted his report to
\nthe Government.  In the writ proceedings the said report was called for.    At
\nthat  stage the production of the same was objected to on the ground that such
\nrecords are protected under Sections 162 and 172 Cr.P.C.   With  reference  to
\nthe objection relating to Section 162 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court held that the
\nsaid  provision  was  enacted  for  the  benefit  of  the accused and that the
\nprovisions will not apply to civil proceedings or proceedings  under  Articles
\n32  or  226  of  the  Constitution  of  India  and can be produced and used in
\nevidence in a writ petition.  As  regards  the  objection  with  reference  to
\nSection 172  Cr.P.C.    also  the same was rejected and the Supreme Court held
\nthat the bar against production and use of the Case Diary  under  Section  172
\nwas  intended  to  operate only in an inquiry or trial for an offence and that
\neven the said bar was only a limited one.  The said bar was also held to  have
\nno  application  where  a  case  diary  was  sought to be produced and used in
\nevidence in Civil proceedings or in a proceeding under Article 32  or  226  of
\nthe Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
                25.  The  enquiry and the report of the P.A.  to the Collector
\nas ordered by the Government would in fact stand  even  on  a  better  footing
\nconsidering  that  it  is neither a statement before the Police Officer, nor a
\ncase of Police Diary of investigation proceedings and hence  does  not  suffer
\nany of  the  inhibitions  of  Sections  162 and 172 Cr.P.C.  It is an official
\nrecord and a report by an independent official of the Government  pursuant  to
\nthe  enquiry  ordered by the Government and hence perfectly admissible in this
\nproceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
                26.  The attempt on the part of the  respondents  to  persuade
\nthe  Court to ignore the said report as biased or as a product of pressure and
\ncoercion, is unsustainable and such  a  defence  is  not  expected  of  Police
\nofficials to raise such baseless contentions for the following reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  The  respondents do not say as to who brought any pressure on the
\nofficial who conducted the enquiry and what was the nature of the pressure  or
\ncoercion.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  Likewise,  regarding  bias  also,  nothing  is  stated about the
\nmotives of the concerned officials much less as to how the said  official  had
\nany  personal  bias  against  all  or any one of the police officials who were
\nindicted.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) If there was any truth or even apprehension in the minds of  the
\nrespondents regarding the bona fides of the said report, the respondents could
\nhave  and would have certainly taken up the issue with the higher officials or
\nthe Government, questioning the grave findings  rendered  against  them  which
\nwere sure  to  affect their future.  The respondents have not contended before
\nme of having taken up the  issue  with  higher  officials  or  the  Government
\nquestioning  the findings rendered by the official nor have they complained of
\nany bias or pressure on the said official.  No reference has been made to  any
\nfurther  proceedings  by any competent authority disagreeing with the evidence
\ntendered before the Officer, nor the findings rendered thereon.\n<\/p>\n
                (iv) On  the  other  hand,  the  Government  agreed  with  the
\nfindings and took steps to proceed against the respondents departmentally.  It
\nis  also pertinent to note that in the separate departmental enquiry also they
\nwere also found guilty which were however, set aside purely  as  a  result  of
\nacquittal by  the  Criminal  Court.    It  is  settled proposition of law that
\nacquittal by Criminal Court is irrelevant for the Departmental proceedings and
\nyet the Government for reasons best known  to  them  did  not  pursue  further
\naction.\n<\/p>\n
                27.   Therefore,  the  criticism  of  the Report by the party\/
\nrespondents cannot be accepted.  In view of the judgment of the Supreme  Court
\nas cited above, the said Report is certainly admissible and is of considerable
\nvalue for  the  purpose  of  this  petition.    The  evidence recorded and the
\ninformation gathered in the said enquiry is valuable being materials  gathered
\nat the  earliest  point  of time., by an independent official.  Many witnesses
\nwho have been examined other than the mother of the victim\/petitioner, are all
\nindependent persons and they are not  interested  in  the  petitioner  or  the
\nvictim  apart  from  the  fact  that  they  are  also aware of the grave risks
\ninvolved in deposing against the local police officials.  Nor  can  they  have
\nany  axe  to  grind  while supporting the case of the petitioner who is a very
\npoor person nor the victim who is accused of having behaved in an  unruly  and
\ndrunken manner.  They are natural witnesses who are living around the area and
\ntheir  spontaneous  statement  at  the earliest point of time to a responsible
\npublic official, his findings thereon deserve consideration as pointed out  by
\nthe Supreme  Court  in  the  judgment  cited  above.  It is true that the said
\nfindings cannot be treated as conclusive, but the point to be borne in mind is
\nthat the learned counsel for the party\/respondents was unable to make any dent
\non the clear and categoric findings and observations except  for  making  bald
\naccusation  that the report was biased and the witnesses were under threat and
\ncoercion.  I have already held that such allegations are without any basis and
\nhave not been substantiated.\n<\/p>\n
                28.  A perusal of the report reveals that most  of  the  facts
\nalleged  in the affidavit of the petitioner are substantially confirmed by the
\nwitnesses.  The official had examined about 25 witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
                29.  Witness No.1 is the petitioner\/mother of the victim.   In
\nher  statement  she  has explained the circumstances which led to the custody,
\ntorture of the victim and the information finally received about  this  death.
\nShe was not permitted to see her son during the night of 21 .6.1993 and during
\nthe early  hours  of  next morning she saw the victim.  When the victim wanted
\nher to relieve him of his pains, she was not allowed to go near  or  to  touch
\nhim.  She has also stated that her son was not suffering from any disease much
\nless, heart disease.\n<\/p>\n
                30.   Witness No.2 is the uncle of the victim and according to
\nhim, the victim was a  person  of  good  character,  never  took  liquor,  nor
\napprehended by the police any time.\n<\/p>\n
                31.Witness  No.3  Maragatham, is an independent witness living
\nat No.15, Gangai Amman Kovil Street.  She has spoken to about the  chasing  of
\nthe victim  by  the  police.    She  had  recognised  the victim as Wilson and
\naccording to her, victim’s hands were tied behind and he was beaten repeatedly
\nby lathi and iron pipe.  When he fell down, the police asked him to get up and
\nrun away, he was unable to do so.  Again he was beaten by the police with iron
\nrod.  When he was taken near the jeep, he fell down.\n<\/p>\n
                32.  Witness No.4 is Nalini also resides at Door No.10, Gangai
\nAmman Kovil Street.  She has also clearly stated that at  about  midnight  she
\ncame  out  of the house after hearing the shouting and Wilson was dragged from
\nthe bath-room in her house and he was beaten by the police  with  knife  which
\nwas in  the  hands of the police.  The victim was beaten on his knee resulting
\nin bleeding injuries.  He was also kicked  and  dragged  outside  and  on  the
\nStreet also  he  was  beaten with lathi and iron rod.  She has also positively
\nstated that Wilson did not suffer from any bad habits and that there were also
\nno building materials on in the street and Wilson could  not  have  fallen  on
\nsuch  building materials as stated by the police and that Wilson had died only
\ndue to the brutal attack on him by the police.\n<\/p>\n
                33.  Witness No.5, Ranganayagi resides at Door  No.13,  Gangai
\nAmman Kovil  Street.  She has also informed that Wilson was beaten brutally by
\nthe police on the Street and that she did not see any knife in  the  hands  of
\nWilson.   She  has also stated that Wilson was a good boy and did not have any
\nbad antecedents.\n<\/p>\n
                34.  Witness No.6 is also a resident  at  Door  No.11,  Gangai
\nAmman Kovil  Street.   He has also deposed that he saw Wilson being dragged on
\nthe street and he was beaten in front of his house also by  the  police,  with
\niron rod  and  lathi.    He  was also kicked by the police and after tying his
\nhands he was dragged up to Gangai Amman Temple.  He has  also  spoken  to  the
\nfact that  Wilson  was  a decent boy and did not have any bad habits.  When he
\nwas caught by the police, there was no knife in his hands.  This  witness  has
\nalso stated that there were no building materials on the street.\n<\/p>\n
                35.   Witness  No.7  is  Dhampachary,  residing  at Door No.8,
\nKandasamy Street.  He has deposed that Wilson was a good person and he did not
\nsuffer from any bad habits.  He was informed by his  mother  that  Wilson  was
\nbeaten by the  police.    He  went to the Royapettah Police Station.  On being
\ninformed that Wilson had been taken to the hospital again he had been  to  the
\nPolice Station next day early morning along with the petitioner and found that
\nthe victim  was  lying  on the verandah and he was bandaged.  He was unable to
\nspeak much.  Again at about 8.30 a.m.  he went to the  Police  station,  along
\nwith the Head Constable Vijayaraj and met the Inspector at the Police Station.
\nHe was  advised  to take bail for Wilson.  Wilson was found to be reclining on
\nthe wall and his mouth was open,his hands and legs were without any  movement.
\nHead Constable Vijayaraj tried to wake up the victim and as he was motionless,
\nthe  Inspector  came  rushing  to  the  place  and finding that the victim was
\nmotionless he was placed in a cycle  rickshaw  and  taken  to  the  Royapettah
\nhospital  and  the Doctors at the Royapettah hospital informed that the Wilson
\nhad died.\n<\/p>\n
                36.  Witness No.8 is also a  resident  of  Door  No.4,  Gangai
\nAmman Kovil Street and he has also deposed that he saw Wilson was being beaten
\nby  the  police with iron rod and lathi and Wilson was unable to move from the
\nplace.\n<\/p>\n
                37.  Witness No.9 is Vijayaraj, Head Constable  of  Ice  House
\nPolice Station.  He has stated that he was residing near Wilson’s house and on
\n21.6.1993 at  about  3.30  a.m.    the petitioner informed him that Wilson was
\ndetained by the police.  He immediately went to the Royapettah Police Station.
\nConstable there had informed him that he may apply for bail and come and  take
\nWilson with him, the next day.  Again at 9.30 a.m.  when he went to the Police
\nStation,  he  found that Wilson was lying down without any movement and he was
\nalso unable to answer any question and hence Inspector was informed abou t the
\nsame, and the victim was taken to the hospital.    He  has  also  stated  that
\nWilson was not enlisted either as a rowdy or as a KD.\n<\/p>\n
                38.   Witness  No.10  is  Chandrasekaran,  Sub  Inspector, 7th
\nrespondent in the writ petition.  He is one among the Police officials who had
\ngone to catch hold of Wilson on the day of the occurrence.  He has stated that
\non 21.6.1993, he and Head Constable  Lewance,  Constable  Chandran,  Constable
\nNagarajan  and Ganesan went towards Gangai Amman Kovil Street and attempted to
\ncatch four individuals who were creating law and order problem at the junction
\nof Royapettah High Road and Gangai Amman Kovil Street.  On seeing the  police,
\nthey tried  to  run  away  and  the  Constables  chased them.  A little later,
\nConstables brought back one of them.  He has further stated that he  took  the
\nlathi from  Nagarajan’s  hand  and  gave  two  beatings on Wilson.  One of the
\nConstables who had chased Wilson, had informed him that Wilson  fell  down  at
\nthe corner of the street and the ‘patta’ knife in the possession of Wilson was
\nremoved from  him.   Thereafter, they have returned to the Police Station with
\nWilson and he had questioned Wilson.  He has also stated that he has not  seen
\nany building materials in the place where Wilson was caught.\n<\/p>\n
                39.   Witness  No.11  is  Leevance,  who  was  Head  Constable
\n(Crimes), Royapettah Police Station.  He has deposed  that  on  the  night  of
\n21.6.199  3 pursuant to the directions of the Sub Inspector Chandrasekaran, he
\nwent to the junction of Gangai Amman Kovil  Street  and  found  four  or  five
\npersons with  ‘patta’  knife.    They chased them and Wilson was caught by the
\nConstables and he has also stated that before he was taken inside the  van  he
\nwas beaten  by the Constables.  But he was not beaten when he was taken inside
\nthe van.  He cannot say as to whether the  other  individuals  who  were  with
\nWilson were arrested.  He has stated that he did not beat Wilson in the Police
\nStation.\n<\/p>\n
                40.  Witness No.12 is Chandran, Constable (Crimes), Royapettah
\nPolice Station.    He  is  also one of the Police personel who had gone to the
\njunction at Royapettah High Road and apprehended Wilson.  He has  stated  that
\nWilson was  beaten  by  a  Constable (Law & Order).  He also joined in beating
\nalong with Leevance and Sub Inspector Chandrasekaran.  Wilson was beaten  only
\nby lathi  on  his  hands  and  legs.    Thereafter  he was taken to the Police
\nStation.  On the next day when he came to the Police Station, he found  Wilson
\nin the  lock-up.    He would also state that he cannot say as to whether other
\nindividuals who had accompanied Wilson were arrested or  not.    He  has  also
\nstated  that  there  were  no building materials in the place where Wilson was
\napprehended and Wilson had never been brought to the  Police  at  any  earlier
\npoint of time.\n<\/p>\n
                41.   Witness  No.13  is  Constable  (L&O)  Royapettah  Police
\nStation.  He has spoken to about the facts relating  to  the  chasing  of  the
\nalleged  four  individuals and that one of them hid himself in a bath room and
\nthat he was having a long ‘Aruval’ in his hand.  Therefore, he was  surrounded
\nby all  the  policemen  and he was beaten by lathi.  He had given five strokes
\nwhile beating with his lathi.  Thereafter the victim was taken to  the  Police
\nStation and  sent to the Hospital for treatment for the injuries.  He has also
\nstated there were no building materials on the spot where Wilson was caught.\n<\/p>\n
                42.  Witness No.14 is another Constable attached to Royapettah
\nPolice Station.  He has deposed about the facts relating to the chase  of  the
\nindividuals and  of apprehending the victim.  He would state that after he was
\nbeaten, the victim threw away the knife.  He would further state that  as  the
\nvictim  was  in  a  drunken  state  he  was  sent  to hospital for drunkenness
\ncertificate.  The victim was sent to the hospital at 1.00 A.M.   and  that  he
\nwas brought  back  from  the  hospital at about 3.15 a.m.  When he was brought
\nback he had bandages over his hand and legs.  He left the  Police  Station  at
\n7.00 A.M.   and  when  he  returned about 10.45 A.M.  he was informed that the
\nvictim had been taken to the hospital and that he  was  dead.    He  has  also
\ndeposed that on the spot of occurrence there were no building materials.\n<\/p>\n
                43.   Witness  No.15  is  another  Constable  attached  to the
\nRoyapettah Police Station.  At about 1.00 A.M.  on 21.6.199  when  he  was  in
\nwaiting  he  and  another  Constable  Mohan  were directed by the Constable in
\ncharge of to take Wilson to the hospital.  Accordingly both of  them  went  to
\nRoyapettah hospital.   He would also state that Wilson was in a drunken state.
\nHe would further state that Dr.Kadri gave treatment for the injuries sustained
\nby the Victim and  while  Dr.Thirunavukkarasu  gave  drunkenness  certificate.
\nThereafter, the victim was taken back to the Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
                44.   Witness  No.16 has also stated the same facts as Witness
\nNo.15.\n<\/p>\n
                45.  Witness  No.17  is  also  a  Constable  attached  to  the
\nRoyapettah Police  Station.    He was in the Police Station when the crew of a
\nTransport Corporation bus had complained at the Police Station regarding  some
\npersons  indulging in violence near Ajantha hotel and that Constables Ganesan,
\nNagarajan, Sub Inspector Chandrasekaran and Head Constable 1802  and  Chandran
\nleft  the  Police  Station at about 11.30 P.M.for apprehending the accused and
\nreturned at about 1.00 A.M.  along with the victim.  Even at that  time  there
\nwere no  bleeding  injuries on the victim.  Thereafter his duties were over by
\n3.00 A.M.  and he went to take rest.  When he returned on the next day at 9.00
\nA.M.  he found that both the legs of the victims were  bandaged  and  that  at
\nabout 10.00 a.m.  when the victim complained pain over his legs, Inspector had
\ndirected Wilson  to  be  taken  to  the  hospital.   The victim was taken in a
\nstretcher in the Royapettah hospital and when they met the Doctor, the  Doctor
\nhad expressed that he was already dead.  Even while the body of the victim was
\ntaken in the stretcher the victim was unconscious.\n<\/p>\n
                46.  Witness  No.18 is also another Constable.  He was on duty
\non 22.6.1993 between 7.00 A.M.  and 11.00 A.M.  He was informed in the  Police
\nStation  about  the  incident during the night near Ajantha hotel and that the
\nvictim had been apprehended.  Inspector Sivaraman (L & O)  and  Sub  Inspector
\nAnandraj enquired  the  victim  only  at  about  9.45  A.M.    The  victim was
\ncomplaining pain all over the body.  Therefore, he was taken to the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
                47.  He has also stated that Constable  Rajasekaran  took  the
\nvictim to  the  hospital.   He came to know about the death of the victim only
\nafter 2.00 p.m.  when he returned from his home.\n<\/p>\n
                48.  Witness  No.19  is  the  Sub  Inspector  (Law  &  Order),
\nRoyapettah Police Station.  He has stated that on 22.6.1993 at about 7.15 a.m.
\nhe saw  the victim in lock-up and found that both the legs were bandaged.  The
\nInspector came at 8.15 A.M.  and enquired the victim.   At  about  10.00  A.M.
\nConstable Kabali,  informed that Wilson was complaining giddiness.  Therefore,
\nhe was sent to the hospital in a rickshaw.   Later  he  was  informed  by  the
\nDoctor that Wilson had died while on his way to the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
                49.   Witness No.20 is the Inspector (Law & Order), Royapettah
\nPolice Station.  He has stated that on 22.6.1993 at about 8.00 a.m.   he  came
\nto the  Police  Station.    He  was  informed  by  Anandraj about the incident
\nrelating to the previous day.  He also enquired the victim and he told that he
\nalong with Venktesh, Ramkumar and Ravi were  creating  problems  near  Ajantha
\nhotel and  they were drunk.  They were chased by the police and except himself
\nthe other three individuals had escaped.  At about  10.00  A.M.    the  victim
\ncomplained  pain  over his body and expressed giddiness and hence he was taken
\nto the hospital.  He  had  also  inspected  the  spot  where  the  victim  was
\napprehended  and  he  has  also  positively  stated  that  there were building
\nmaterials or iron rods at the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
                50.  Witness No.21 is Dr.Kadri, Casualty  Medical  officer  of
\nthe Government  Royapettah  hospital.  He has stated that on 22.6.1993 when he
\nwas on duty in the Accident Block, at about 2.15 A.M.  the victim was  brought
\nto him  by two police constables.  They were in mufti and when he examined the
\nvictim he had the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
        (1) 1 cm.  Laceration left leg:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (2) small lacerations left ankle and right leg.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (3) A few linear contusions on the both arms.  The  general  condition
\nof the patient  was  good.    He  was  limping and walking by himself.  He was
\nanswering to questions well.\n<\/p>\n
After referring to the X-ray reports  he  had  also  stated  that  the  linear
\ncontusion on the arms could have been caused due to assault with lathi.\n<\/p>\n
                51.   Witness  No.22  is  Dr.Ezhilrajan,  Orthopaedic Surgeon,
\nRoyapettah Hospital.  On 22.6.1993 at about 2.30 a.m.  the patient was brought
\nto him and the patient was referred to the Casualty Medical Officer.    As  he
\nwas  complaining  of  pain  and  there  was  swelling on his right hand he was
\nexamined.  He was found to be conscious and he was answering all questions and
\nhis general condition was stable.  He had multiple abrasions on the  legs  and
\ndeep abrasion  on  the  outer  side  of  the  right ankle.  He was limping and
\nwalking with the support of  the  Wall.    Clinical  examination  showed  that
\ntenderness on the ankle joint and Xray revealed ankle fracture.  Hence plaster
\nof Paris  was  given.    He  has  further  stated  that  the attenders who had
\naccompanied the victim were not willing to  admit  the  victim  as  inpatient.
\nTherefore, he was given drugs and treated as outpatient.  He was asked to come
\non Wednesday which was the out-patient day for review.\n<\/p>\n
                52.   Witness  No.23  is  Dr.Thirunavukkarasu  is the Casualty
\nMedical Officer attached to the hospital.  He was on duty  on  21.6.1993  from
\n2.0 0 p.m.    to  22.6.1993  8.00  a.m.   The victim was brought to him with a
\npolice memo by two Constables.  The time was 3.15 a.m.  and he  had  issued  a
\ncertificate that  the  victim  has  taken  liquor.  He examined the victim and
\nfound that he was conscious and he was answering  to  his  questions  and  his
\nbreath was  smelling  of  alcohol.  Therefore, he asked the Medical Officer to
\nissue a drunkenness certificate to the effect that  the  victim  had  consumed
\nliquor but was not under its influence.  The victim has stated that he was not
\nwilli ng to give blood or urine for examination.  He had injuries for which he
\nwas  already  taken  to the Accident Block Casualty and was given treatment by
\nthe Casualty Medical Officer.\n<\/p>\n
                53.  Witness No.24 is Dr.Loganathan, Casualty Medical  Officer
\nhas  spoken  to  the fact of the victim having been brought to the Casualty at
\nabout 10.25 A.M.  on 22.6.1993 and on examination it was found that there  was
\nno pulse and  blood  pressure.  Both pupils were fixed and dilated.  There was<\/p>\n
no heart sound and hence the victim was declared as dead.  He had  made  entry
\nin  the  Accident  Register as the victim who was brought to the hospital, was
\ndeclared as dead.\n<\/p>\n
                54.  Witness No.25 is Dr.Diwakar,  Surgeon  and  Professor  of
\nForensic  Medicines  and he has stated that he received a requisition from the
\nP.A.  to the Additional District Magistrate to conduct autopsy over  the  body
\nof the  deceased  Wilson  on  22.6.1993  at  about  4.10  p.m.    He commenced
\npost-mortem at 4.20 P.M.  on the same day and  found  that  the  body  of  the
\nvictim  was  a  well developed and moderately nourished body of an adult male.
\nHe has spoken to the various injuries sustained  by  the  victim.    He  would
\nfurther state that the deceased would have died due to the anoxic heart due to
\nhyper trophy  with multiple injuries.  He has also stated that Injury No.2-(a)
\nto 2(z) would have been caused by some blunt weapons like lathis or iron rods.
\nAll the injuries would have been caused about 6 to 12 hours prior to the death
\nof the victim.  The Doctor has further stated that there was narrowing of  the
\nvalve which  leads  to  concentric  hypertrophy  of  the  left ventricle.  The
\ndeceased would have died due to indirect coronary insufficiency due to  aortic
\nstenosis leading  to  hypertrophy  of  the  heart.  In this case, the indirect
\ncoronary insufficiency would be due to  multiple  injuries  sustained  by  the
\ndeceased and  also  to  its  attendant  pain  and emotional factors.  Injuries
\nsustained by the victim aggravated the aortic stenosis and hypertrophy leading
\nto his death.\n<\/p>\n
                55.  The Enquiring Officer after having analysed the  evidence
\nof 25 witnesses as above, concluded that police ought to have obtained a wound
\ncertificate from  the  Government  Doctor on duty.  That has not been complied
\nwith in this case.  He had also taken note of the  fact  that  Nalini  was  an
\nindependent witness  and  resident of Gangai Amman Kovil Lane.  She has spoken
\nto the facts that there was no building  material.    Even  according  to  the
\npolice, witnesses,  there  were  no  building  materials  at  the  scene.  The
\nEnquiring Officer himself conducted a spot inspection  and  found  that  there
\nwere no  building  materials  in  the  concerned  spot.   With the result, the
\nEnquiry Officer concluded that the version of the police in the F.I.R.    that
\nthe  victim had fallen down on some iron materials and sustained injuries is a
\nbundle of lies and false to the core.  Therefore, he concluded that there  was
\nsufficient  evidence  to  show that the victim had sustained multiple injuries
\nonly due to the ruthless action of the police.\n<\/p>\n
                56.  As regards the other facts of apprehending the victim and
\nthe injuries sustained by the victim, the Enquiry Officer has stated  that  he
\nwas inclined to believe the independent testimony of Maragatham and Nalini and
\nthat their  evidence  was also confirmed by Dr.S.Diwakar.  The Enquiry Officer
\nalso held that the  victim  was  subjected  to  brutal  attack  and  heinously
\nperpetrated  on  him  by  five  named  persons  namely, (1) Chandrasekaran (2)
\nLeavance, (3) Chandran, (4) Ganesan and (5) Nagarajan.  He has also found that
\nthe police has destroyed the dress worn by the victim.  If the said dress  had
\nbeen produced  it  would  have definitely betrayed the police.  Therefore, the
\npolice have suppressed the production of the dress  which  were  worn  by  the
\nvictim.   He  further  found  that  the  police  have given false evidence and
\ntherefore they had committed offence under  Section  191  I.P.C.    They  have
\ncaused disappearance  of  Wilson’s  dress.   Hence they were also found guilty
\nunder Section 201 I.P.C.  The Enquiry  Officer  has  also  observed  that  the
\nnature  of the charge being murder, would require testimony of two independent
\nwitnesses and that the two independent witnesses in  this  case  are  the  two
\nladies.   In fact, the Enquiry Officer had rightly apprehended that the police
\nwill have no qualms and that in all probability they will  succumb  to  Police
\nthreats  and  intimidation  and  will not come forward to give their testimony
\nlater.\n<\/p>\n
                57.  In the result, the Enquiry  Officer  recommended  to  the
\ndepartment  to  punish the police personnel by initiating departmental action.
\nHe also recommended suitable punishment  for  Dr.Thirunavukkarasu  for  having
\nissued a drunkenness certificate while actually the victim did not consume any
\nalcohol as  could  be  seen  from the Chemical Examiner’ s report.  Therefore,
\nEnquiring Officer concluded that Dr.  Thirunavukkarasu also had  issued  false
\ncertificate of  drunkenness  in  favour  of  the police.  He also directed the
\nGovernment to  suitably  instruct  to  take  appropriate  action  and  inflict
\ndeterrent punishment  against  him  for having issued a false certificate.  He
\nalso recommended monetary compensation should be awarded to the mother of  the
\nvictim.\n<\/p>\n
                58.   The  evidence  thus  recorded by the Enquiring Authority
\nunder Clause 145 P.S.O.  reflects  the  immediate  and  spontaneous  materials
\ngathered  at  the  earliest  possible  point of time and immediately after the
\nincident.  The  findings  recorded  by  the  Officer  who  is  an  independent
\nGovernment  Officer  is  also  based  on his assessment of the demeanour o the
\nwitnesses.  He has rightly concluded that the named individuals  had  indulged
\nin brutal  attacks  “in  a most bestial manner with impunity”.  He has further
\nstated that the police had also indulged in suppressing the materials and have
\nnot produced the dress which was worn by the victim, which would have  exposed
\nthe  real  facts  and  that they have deliberately caused disappearance of the
\nvictim’s dress.   After  taking  into  account  the  fact  that  the  Chemical
\nExaminer’s  report did not support the claim of the Police that the victim had
\nconsumed alcohol, he had  also  come  to  the  definite  conclusion  that  the
\ndrunkenness certificates  issued by Dr.Thirunavukkarasu as false.  He had also
\nrecommended action against the said Doctor.\n<\/p>\n
                59.  Even ignoring the finding of the Enquiry Officer, I  have
\nalso  independently  considered the issue both on the materials made available
\nthrough the enquiry under P.S.O.  and the affidavit filed before  this  Court,
\nCounter-affidavit  filed on behalf of the respondents and the arguments before
\nthis Court.  The fact that victim  had  sustained  multiple  injuries  is  not
\ndenied.   The only explanation which is sought to be assigned for the injuries
\non the body of the victim is that while he was being chased, he fell  down  on
\ncertain metal scrap\/building materials which were allegedly heaped on the road
\nwhere he  was  apprehended.  Apart from the fact that all the public witnesses
\nhave totally denied the same, it is pertinent to note  that  even  the  police
\npersonnel  themselves  have  agreed  that  there  was no such heap of building
\nmaterials.  Witnesses Nos.12, 13, 14 and 20  who  are  police  personnel  have
\nfrankly admitted  that  there were no building materials on the spot.  Witness
\nNos.13 and 14 are none other than respondents 11 and 10 respectively.  Witness
\nNo.20 is the Inspector of Law and Order  attached  to  the  Royapettah  Police
\nStation.   Therefore,  there  being no basis for the only explanation which is
\ngiven for the injuries on the body of the petitioner’s son being found  to  be
\nfalse,  the  burden  is  heavy  on the police to show as to how the victim had
\nsustained multiple injuries which ultimately led to his death.\n<\/p>\n
                60.  The story of the victim of having fallen over a  heap  of
\nbuilding materials being proved to be false even according to the statement of
\npolice personnel themselves, the burden to explain the innumerable injuries on
\nthe victim  is  very  heavy on the respondents.  There is no other explanation
\nfrom the respondents other than the story that the victim had  fallen  over  a
\nheap of  building  materials,  which  is  found to be totally false.  There is
\nevidence of the victim having been beaten on the road while he  was  allegedly
\nindulging in  violent  behaviour  in  public.   This is not disputed by either
\nside.  The use of minimum force by the police while apprehending a person  who
\nis  allegedly creating law and order problem is inevitable and no police force
\ncan function effectively if such a right is not given to them.   It  would  of
\ncourse, depend  upon the actual facts.  We do come across scenes of members of
\npubic being beaten unnecessarily even when there is no violent  behaviour  and
\nwhen there  is  no resistance from being arrested.  Such use of indiscriminate
\nand brutal force is certainly deplorable.  But in this case, for the  sake  of
\ndiscussion  we  will  assume that the conduct of the victim having indulged in
\nviolent behaviour and was trying to run away is true.    If  so,  the  use  of
\nminimum  force  on him to bring him under control and to take him into custody
\nwould be justified.  We will for a moment ignore the evidence of  the  private
\nindividuals  who  have stated that the victim was mercilessly beaten black and
\nblue even while he was pleading for  mercy  and  cried  that  he  did  not  do
\nanything wrong.  I will also accept the evidence of the police personnel which
\nis  to  the  effect  that  four or five of them had to indulge in lathi charge
\nagainst the victim and that each of them had  given  three  or  four  beatings
\nonly.  Thereafter, he is taken to the police station.  From there he was taken
\nto the hospital at 2.00 A.M.  and given treatment by Dr.  Khadri.  He has seen
\nthe following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i) 1 cm.  Laceration on left leg.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (ii) small laceration on the left ankle and right leg.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (iii) few linear contusion on both arms.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According  to  the  Doctor,  he  was  limping  while  walking  and his general
\ncondition was good and was answering the questions well.  He would state  that
\nthe injuries  could  have  been  caused  due to assault with lathis.  Then the
\nDoctor took an X-ray and referred the case to the duty  Assistant  Orthopaedic
\nSurgeon who  examined  him at 2.30 A.M.  The Orthopaedic surgeon recorded that
\nthough the victim’s general condition was stable, he found that the right hand
\nof the victim was swolen and he had multiple abrasions on the  legs  and  deep
\nabrasions  on  the right ankle and clinical examination revealed tenderness of
\nthe ankle joint.  The X-Ray revealed ankle fracture.   Therefore,  plaster  of
\nparis was fixed and the victim was also given drugs.\n<\/p>\n
                61.   Thus the statement of the said two Doctors disclose that
\nthe first time when the victim was brought to the hospital at about 2.15 a.m.,
\nhe had only few abrasions and lacerations on the legs and hands and there  was
\nalso a fracture of the right ankle.  Thereafter he was discharged and taken to
\nthe  police  station and was again brought to the hospital only as a dead-body
\nat about 10.00 A.M.  next day.\n<\/p>\n
                62.  The nature and number of  injuries  as  recorded  in  the
\npostmortem  report  reveals 14 abrasions, 26 patterned abrasions with bruising
\nwith beneath, a lacerated sutured wound of 4 c.m.  over left shin and  another
\nlacerated sutured wound of 3 c.m.  Over the left ankle.  The variation between
\nthe nature and number of injuries between the two stages would clearly suggest
\nthat  beating  should  have continued in the police station also even after he
\nwas taken back to the police station  from  the  hospital.    Apart  from  the
\nvariation  in  the number of injuries, even the details relating to the actual
\nspots on the body of the victim where the various injuries were found  in  the
\npostmortem  examination,  would  also suggest that the victim should have been
\nsubjected to renewed  beating  again  at  the  police  station  after  he  was
\ndischarged from  the  hospital.    The  statement  of both the doctors Witness
\nNos.21 and 22 who had given treatment to the victim when he was taken  to  the
\nhospital  at  2.00  a.m.,  the  Casualty  Medical  Officer and the Orthopaedic
\nSurgeon respectively reveal that he had only few lacerations and abrasions  or
\nlinear  contusions  on  his  hands and legs and also the fracture of the right
\nankle.  No other parts of the body have been mentioned of having sustained any
\ninjury.  But the list of injuries shown in the post-mortem report reveal  that
\nthe  victim  had  sustained  injuries  on  several  other  parts  of his body.
\nAbrasions were found on the neck, right shoulder, left arm pit, left shoulder,
\nleft chest and above the right knee and also four injuries on the right thigh,
\netc.  These facts would clearly suggest that beatings  should  have  continued
\nagain  even  after  he was taken back from the hospital to the Police Station,
\nafter he was given treatment at the hospital.  It is further pertinent to note
\nthat the Orthopaedic Surgeon had also positively stated that the attenders who
\nhad accompanied the victim (Constable Gurunathan and Mohan) were  not  willing
\nfor  admitting  the  patient  and  therefore,  the victim had to be treated as
\noutpatient only because of the attitude of the constables.   Even  though  the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out the variation in the number
\nand  nature  of  injuries  as  between  two  stages,  there  is  absolutely no
\nexplanation on the side of the party\/respondents.  In fact even  according  to
\nthe  police,  the  nature  of  injuries sustained by the victim at the time of
\narrest were only minor injuries (Paragraph No.3 of the counter of  respondents
\n7 to 11).\n<\/p>\n
                63.  In STATE  OF  M.P.    v.    SHYAMSUNDER TRIVEDI<\/a> (1995 (4)
\nS.C.C., 262), the Supreme Court held that police officials alone  can  explain
\nthe circumstances  in  which a person in their custody had died.  The relevant
\nobservations are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The High Court erroneously overlooked the ground reality that rarely in cases
\nof police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity
\nof the police personnel would be available, when  it  observed  that  ‘direct’
\nevidence  about  the  complicity  of  these  respondents  was  not  available.
\nGenerally speaking, it would be police officials alone who  can  only  explain
\nthe circumstances  in which a person in their custody had died.  Bound as they
\nare by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that  the  police  personnel
\nprefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save
\ntheir  colleagues,  and the present case is an apt illustration, as to how one
\nafter the other police witnesses feigned ignorance about the whole matter.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  …..  The exaggerated  adherence  to  and  insistence  upon  the
\nestablishment  of  proof  beyond  every  reasonable doubt, by the prosecution,
\nignoring  the  ground  realities,  the  fact-situations   and   the   peculiar
\ncircumstances  of  a  given  case,  as  in  the present case, often results in
\nmiscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system a  suspect.    In
\nthe  ultimate  analysis  the  society  suffers and a criminal gets encouraged.
\nTortures in police custody,  which  of  late  are  on  the  increase,  receive
\nencouragement by this type of an unrealistic approach of the courts because it
\nreinforces  the  belief  in  the mind of the police that no harm would come to
\nthem, if an odd prisoner dies in the lock-up, because there  would  hardly  be
\nany  evidence available to the prosecution to directly implicate them with the
\ntorture.  The Courts must not lose sight of the  fact  that  death  in  police
\ncustody  is  perhaps  one  of the worst kind of crimes in a civilised society,
\ngoverned by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised
\nsociety.   Torture  in  custody  flouts  the  basic  rights  of  the  citizens
\nrecognised  by  the  Indian  Constitution  and is an affront to human dignity.
\nPolice excesses and the  maltreatment  of  detainees\/undertrial  prisoners  or
\nsuspects tarnishes the image of any civilised nation and encourages the men in
\n‘Khaki’  to  consider  themselves  to  be  above the law and sometimes even to
\nbecome law unto themselves.  Unless stern measures  are  taken  to  check  the
\nmalady,  the  foundations  of  the  criminal  justice delivery system would be
\nshaken and the civilization itself  would  risk  the  consequence  of  heading
\ntowards perishing.    The  courts  must,  therefore, deal with such cases in a
\nrealistic manner and with the sensitivity which they  deserve,  otherwise  the
\ncommon man may lose faith in the judiciary itself, which will be a sad day.”\n<\/p>\n
                64.  Assuming that the victim among others had created any law
\nand  order  problem,  even so when once the victim had been caught and brought
\nunder  control,  there  was  absolutely   no   need   to   have   beaten   him
\nindiscriminately even  while he was arrested.  There is clear evidence to show
\nthat even when the victim was not putting up any resistance and  was  actually
\npleading  for  mercy and was crying that he had not committed any misbehaviour
\nand that he was innocent, he was beaten indiscriminately with lathis  and  was
\nkicked.   The  power  given  to  the  police to use minimum force to bring the
\noffenders under control or to maintain law and order does not include sadistic
\nand savage behaviour.  The observation by the P.A.   to  the  Collector  under
\nP.S.O.145  that the police had really murdered the victim is therefore, not at
\nall an exaggeration.  In  fact,  the  Enquiry  Officer  had  very  judiciously
\nanalysed the  evidence  very  correctly.  He had not given any credence to the
\nevidence of the mother and the uncle of the victim, Witness  Nos.1  and  2  as
\ninterested witnesses and he has based his conclusions only on the statement of
\nthe other independent witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
                65.  Therefore, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation
\nregarding the injuries sustained by the victim, I have no hesitation in coming
\nto the conclusion that the victim had sustained numerous grievous injuries and
\nthat his death was only due to the custodial violence by the police.\n<\/p>\n
                66.   The  contention on the part of the respondents as though
\nthe victim was suffering from a heart disease and therefore, the death was not
\ndue to any ill-treatment, is to be stated only to be rejected as baseless  and
\nirresponsible.   On  the  side of the victim it is specifically stated without
\nany contradiction that the victim was a normal, hale and healthy youth  of  24
\nyears and had never faced any health problem.  The description of the heart as
\n“anoxic heart”  is  attempted  to  be taken advantage by the respondents.  The
\nfinal opinion of the Doctor is given that the deceased would  appear  to  have
\ndied of anoxic heart, due to his hyper trophy with multiple injuries.\n<\/p>\n
                67.   I  am  unable  to  attach  any  importance  to  the said
\ndescription of the  condition  as  anoxic  heart.    Firstly  considering  the
\npositive  evidence on the side of the victim to the effect that the petitioner
\nhad never suffered from any complaint and that  he  was  a  hale  and  healthy
\nperson, it cannot be ruled out that the said statement regarding the condition
\nof the  heart  may  not  be  correct.   Unfortunately,in our country it is not
\nunusual that medical evidence is tailored to  suit  the  requirements  of  the
\nprosecution,  more  so  in  this case, being one of custodial death in which a
\ngroup of police personnel are placed in a very tight terminal corner.   How  a
\nfalse  certificate  was  issued  by  one of the doctors to the effect that the
\nvictim was intoxicated, has already been dealt with.  Secondly, assuming  that
\ndescription  of  the  condition  of the victim as anoxic heart is correct, the
\nvery same Doctor had expressed that the victim would have  died  only  due  to
\ncoronary  insufficiency and due to aortic stenosis and also of direct coronary
\ninsufficiency due to multiple injuries sustained by the deceased and also  due
\nto attendant  pain  and  emotional factors.  Therefore, the root cause is only
\nthe multiple injuries, pain and shock.\n<\/p>\n
                68.  In our  country,  imperfect  health  is  due  to  several
\nfactors  such  as  malnutrition,  hereditary  factors,  marriage  among  close
\nrelations, polluted environment etc., to mention a few  which  contributes  to
\ncertain adverse health  symptoms.    But  such factors are only marginal.  The
\nDoctor himself has stated that coronary  insufficiency  was  due  to  multiple
\ninjuries  sustained  by  the  deceased  and also due to the attendant pain and
\nemotional factors.  The deficiency even if true is only marginal.  Rarely  one
\nwould  be  able  to satisfy the parameters of all the vital organs to the text
\nbook perfection.  While explaining ” anoxic heart”, the Professor of  Forensic
\nMedicine  (Witness  No.25)  has stated that the victim’s aortic value measured
\nsix centimetres as against the normal size of seven to nine centimetres.   The
\nvariation is therefore, only marginal and inconsequential.  To be endowed with
\nperfect  condition  of all vital organs may be common but the converse is also
\nequally true.  Marginal congenital defects in vital organs  are  also  common.
\nBut that is no reason say that the death was only due to the said feature.  In
\na  criminal  case,  it would be unreasonable to say that the victim could have
\nbeen saved if proper medical treatment had been given and that the victim  had
\nno business  to  die.  The Doctor had positively stated that the death was due
\nto coronary insufficiency due  to  multiple  injuries  and  also  due  to  its
\nattendant pain  and  emotional factors.  Therefore, the attempt on the part of
\nthe respondents to hang on the description  of  the  heart  condition  of  the
\nvictim is an excuse invented by the respondents in desperation.\n<\/p>\n
                69.   The overall conduct of the police personnel as mentioned
\nbelow would reveal absolute lack of bona fides in them in having handled  this
\ncase and that the series of their conduct is an exhibition of absolute inhuman
\nconduct and sadism, lacks bona fides for reasons inter alia as stated below.\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  Though  it  is  made  to  appear that the victim was indulging in
\nviolent behaviour along with three others, absolutely no follow-up action  had
\nat  all  been  taken on the complaint regarding the incident which lead to the
\narrest of Wilson.  The other three individuals who were stated to have escaped
\nthe chase, were never brought to action and admittedly there  was  no  further
\nfollow-up of  the complaint at all.  Certainly for the kind of treatment given
\nt o the victim, he would have definitely given the particulars relating to the
\nother individuals and in fact the statement of the Inspector himself is to the
\neffect that the victim gave the names of the other  three  individuals.    Nor
\ncould  it  be  stated  that  the  police  could  not  have arrested the others
\nconcerned in the incident.  It is also not the case of  the  police  that  the
\nvictim  had refused to disclose the names of the other individuals and in fact
\nhe had disclosed the names.  Therefore, the question which naturally arises is
\nwhy there has been absolutely no follow-up action.   This  casts  considerable
\ndoubt  on  the  very involvement of the victim much less the incident which is
\nsaid to have taken place namely, the  violent  behaviour  of  the  victim  and
\nothers of  having really created any law and order situation.  It is also seen
\nthat the crew of the Transport Corporation had not been  produced  in  enquiry
\nunder Clause 145 of the P.S.O., which the Police could have easily done.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  It  is also pertinent to note that though the victim was alleged
\nto have been carrying a knife with him and that it was seized from him, it  is
\nadmitted in the  F.I.R.    itself that it was seized without any Mahazar.  The
\nreason given in the F.I.R.  is that no individual  was  around  the  place  is
\nagainst  their own statement regarding the circumstances and the background in
\nwhich victim was apprehended and that the victim and others were creating  law
\nand  order  problem  much to the scare of the public and lot of people around.
\nThis feature coupled with contradiction in the description of  the  weapon  as
\n“Aruval” by few witnesses and as “knife” by other witnesses, both being Police
\nwitness  and  it  is  curious  that  they  do  not know the difference between
\n“Aruval” and “knife”.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) As against the Doctor’s instructions the Constables had  refused
\nto  admit  him as inpatient in spite of the fact that the victim had sustained
\nvarious and multiple injuries,  and  he  was  unable  to  walk  and  had  also
\nsustained a fracture injury.  Even assuming that the idea was not for renewing
\nthe  torture,  it  shows the respondents in a very bad light of negligence and
\nabsolute lack of human feelings.\n<\/p>\n
        (iv) Not permitting the mother of  the  victim  even  to  console  the
\nvictim  when  he was wailing with pain when the mother came to police station,
\nan hour or two earlier to his death.\n<\/p>\n
        (v) Obtaining false drunkenness certificate which indicates clear mala
\nfides on the part of the police personnel to implicate the victim as though he
\nwas a bad character.  The fact that the respondents  should  have  stooped  to
\ncreate false evidence, is proof of lack of bona fides.\n<\/p>\n
        (vi)  The  non-production  the  of  the  dress belonging to the victim
\nbefore the P.A.  to the Collector.  No such material had  been  produced  even
\nbefore the Criminal Court.\n<\/p>\n
(vii) The only theory advanced by the respondents for the injuries on the body
\nof  the  victim  that he had fallen on the metalic scrap\/building materials is
\nfound to be absolutely false.  Not  only  the  P.A.    to  the  Collector  has
\ninspected  the  place  on the very same day of the victim’s death on 22.6.1993
\nand found that there was no such heap of  building  materials,  but  also  the
\nevidence  of  some of the police personnel themselves show that the said story
\nwas false.  Witness No.10 (7th respondent) has stated that he had not seen any
\nsuch heap of building materials even though he is one of the policemen who was
\non the spot  when  the  victim  was  arrested.    Witness  Nos.12,  13,  (11th
\nrespondent),  14  (10th  respondent)  also  have  deposed  that  there were no
\nbuilding materials.  Witness No.20, the Inspector of Police (L & O), has  also
\nstated  that  on  the  same  day when he inspected the spot he did not see any
\nbuilding materials.  Therefore, the story of the building  materials  and  the
\nvictim  having  fallen  over  the  building  materials  is  not only false and
\nmotivated, but  also  is  sufficient  to  expose  that  the  concerned  police
\nofficials  have  chosen to give false evidence in support of a false reason to
\nexplain away the injuries on the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        (viii) The statement of the private witnesses that the victim was  not
\ninvolved  in any previous complaint and that he had never been apprehended for
\nany misbehaviour is admitted by the police Witnesses Nos.1 0 and  13).    This
\nfact  coupled  with  the  glaring feature that the case against the victim and
\nthree others did not progress at all, raise considerable doubt about the  very
\nincident which  led  to  the  arrest  of the victim.  It is true that at about
\nmidnight of 21.6.1993, the victim was beaten and arrested at the  junction  of
\nGangai Amman Kovil street.  But the actual facts and circumstances under which
\nany  incident  took  place leading to the arrest of the victim have not at all
\nbeen brought to the light by the police.  There was no attempt to produce  any
\nmember  of the public who are stated to have been present where the victim and
\nothers are alleged to have caused law and order problem, nor the crew  of  the
\nbus who are stated to have given the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
        (ix)  Non  furnishing  of Post-mortem certificate in spite of repeated
\ndemands reveal spiteful and unreasonable attitude.\n<\/p>\n
                70.  The aforesaid discussion  clearly  establishes  that  the
\ngruesome  death  of the victim was the result of the brutal and inhuman attack
\non the victim when  he  was  apprehended  and  arrested  on  the  midnight  of
\n21.6.1993  and  thereafter also he had been subjected to torture at the police
\nstation.  As stated earlier, the first time when he was taken to the  hospital
\nexcept  for  the  few injuries and the fracture of the ankle which made him to
\nlimp, his condition was stated to be normal and stable and was  answering  all
\nthe questions  in  a  normal manner.  There is absolutely no explanation as to
\nhow his condition worsened with many and fresh unexplained injuries  after  he
\nwas taken back to the Police Station, resulting in his death.  I have no doubt
\nin  my  mind  that he had died in the Police Station itself and that the story
\nthat he was taken to the hospital immediately after he complained giddiness is
\nfalse.  The hospital is only a few yards  from  the  police  station  and  the
\nDoctor who  attended on him had stated that he was already dead.  Witness No.9
\nHead Constable of Ice House Police Station has stated that at 9.45 a.m.   when
\nhe  saw  the  victim  he  did  not  respond  to  any question and there was no
\nbreathing (ngr;R K:r;R ,y;yhky;  ,Ue;jhh;)  and  that  on  his  informing  the
\nInspector,  the  Inspector  directed  the  victim to be taken to the hospital.
\nThough he also adds that the victim was unconscious, his statement that  there
\nwas no  breathing,  is  significant.    This  evidence also runs contra to the
\nevidence of Witness No.18, Grade I, Constable that  the  victim  was  shouting
\nbetween 9.45 a.m.   and 10.00 a.m.  complaining pain.  He has also stated that
\nthe victim was questioned by Anandraj, Sub Inspector and Sivaraman,  Inspector
\nbetween 7.30 a.m.    and 8.00 a.m.  The fact that the victim had been enquired
\nduring that time is also admitted by both of them  (Witness  Nos.19  and  20).
\nWhat  sort  of questioning should have taken place could be very well inferred
\nby the subsequent fact that the victim having become unconscious by 9.30  a.m.
\nor 9.45 a.m.<\/p>\n
                71.   As  a result of the above analysis, I have no hesitation
\nin accepting the reasonings and the findings rendered by  the  P.A.    to  the
\nCollector.   He  has  rightly  dealt  with the evidence in a judicious manner.
\nAfter eschewing the evidence  of  victim’s  mother  and  uncle  as  interested
\nwitnesses,  he  has  characterised  the  evidence  of Maragatham and Nalini as
\nindependent and reliable witnesses.  The evidence of the Doctor who  conducted
\npost-mortem  also  confirms that the death was ultimately due to the injuries.
\nI have also independently considered the evidence and I  find  no  reasons  to
\ndiffer from  the  findings  in  the enquiry under Clause 145 of the P.S.O.  As
\nstated earlier in the case of custodial death, the Supreme Court had  held  in
\n1995  (4)  S.C.C.,  262),  that  the  police  officials  alone can explain the
\ncircumstances in which a person in their custody had died.\n<\/p>\n
                72.  The attempt on the part of the respondents to rely on the
\nacquittal in the Criminal proceedings is of no consequence for reasons already
\nstated.  The P.A.  to the Collector had rightly foreseen  the  course  of  the
\nevents  and  after  referring to the evidence of two independent witnesses who
\nare ladies, he has proceeded further to observe that the police will  have  no
\nqualms  in  intimidating  the  poor hapless ladies and that in all probability
\nthey will succumb to police threat and intimidation and may not  come  forward
\nto give their  testimony  later.    His  fears  had  come true.  Therefore, no
\nimportance can be attached to the outcome of the criminal  proceedings.    For
\ncoming  to  the conclusion to the contra, I have relied on the statements made
\nbefore  the  competent  authority  spontaneously  and  immediately  after  the
\noccurrence on  the  very next day itself within 24 hours of the incident.  The
\nmanner in which the departmental proceedings had concluded also leaves much to
\nbe said.  For a grave  and  gruesome  crime  of  killing  an  individual,  the
\ndelinquents were  let of with a minor punishment.  Persons who had indulged in
\ncausing grave injuries resulting in death are  let  off  by  a  punishment  of
\nreduction  in pay by two stages which is nothing but a mockery of disciplinary
\nproceedings.  If even high ranking Police officials are indulgent towards such
\ngruesome conduct of their subordinates, it will certainly not help the  Police
\nforce to  regain  their status as friend of the public.  Even the ridiculously
\nlow punishment is set aside by the Tribunal only on the ground that they  were
\nfound not  guilty  in  the criminal proceedings.  It is settled proposition of
\nlaw that the evidence and the findings before the Criminal Court will  not  be
\nconclusive for  taking  disciplinary  action.    For reasons best known to the
\nrespondents no further  proceedings  were  taken  against  the  order  of  the
\nTribunal.   Such  failure  to  pursue  further  action  and  the result of the
\nproceedings before the Criminal Court cannot be an impediment for  this  Court
\nto grant proper relief to the hapless mother of the victim in this proceeding,
\nwhen there is abundant evidence recorded immediately after the incident.\n<\/p>\n
                73.   It  is also pertinent to note that the party\/respondents
\nagainst whom specific allegations have been  made  have  not  chosen  to  file
\nindependent counter  affidavits  denying such contentions.  On the other hand,
\nit is only  the  7th  respondent  who  files  a  common  counteraffidavit  for
\nrespondents 7  to  11.  The specific allegations relating to the circumstances
\nwhich led to the death of the victim, are not properly dealt with, in the said
\ncommon counter-affidavit.       In the short counter affidavit filed by  them,
\ntheir  version  of what happened on the night of 21.6.1993 alone is dealt with
\nin detail and as regards the other allegations, the counter affidavit contains
\nonly formal denials without taking efforts to place all the facts  before  the
\nCourt  as  to what exactly happened in the Police Station, nature of injuries,
\nnature of treatment given to the victim etc.  The manner in which the  counter
\nhas  been  filed  only  exposes  the  casual  manner in which serious issue of
\ncustodial death is dealt with.  In fact after the arrest of the victim the 7th
\nrespondent had gone back to his house and returned only later and  he  is  not
\nthe  proper  person  to  speak  about many of the allegations contained in the
\naffidavit.  Such is the indifferent manner in which the counter is filed in  a
\nserious case of this type.\n<\/p>\n
                74.   On  behalf of the respondents, a feeble attempt was made
\nto the effect that in a proceeding under Article 226 of  the  Constitution  of
\nIndia,  this Court will not be inclined to award any compensation and that the
\nparties should be directed to the Civil Court.  It is  true  that  in  matters
\nrelating  to award of compensation, which would involve evidence to be adduced
\nby both sides, parties are generally directed to  approach  the  Civil  Court.
\nBut  in  the  case  of custodial deaths, this Court and the Supreme Court have
\nrepeatedly held that under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution  of  India,
\nthe  Supreme  Court  and  the  High  Courts  would  be  justified  in awarding
\ncompensation vide the following judgments:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i) NILABATI BEHERA v.  STATE OF ORISSA (A.I.R.1993 S.C.,<\/a> 1960).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (ii) D.K.BASU v.  STATE OF W.B.  (A.I.R.1997 S.C.,<\/a> 610).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (iii) PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v.  UNION OF INDIA  (A.I.R.19<\/a>
\n97 S.C., 1203).\n<\/p>\n
                75.   Now  coming  to  the quantum of compensation, it is true
\nthat the petitioner had been paid a  sum  of  Rs.50,000\/-  vide  G.O.Ms.No.759
\nPublic Department, dated 19.8.1994.  It is pertinent to note that subsequently
\neven  during  the  pendency  of  this writ petition, in G.O.Ms.No.15 3, Public
\nDepartment,  dated  31.1.1998,  quantum  of  relief  has  been  increased   to
\nRs.1,00,000\/- from Rs.50,000\/- in the case of death due to police torture.  In
\nthe  writ  petition,  the  petitioner has sought for a sum of Rs.3,00,000\/- as
\ncompensation.  Having regard to  the  age  of  the  boy  (24  years)  and  the
\nuncontradicted  claim  that  he  was  doing  screen printing and earning about
\nRs.2,000\/- per month, and the fact that the petitioner had lost her only  son,
\nfixing a  sum  of  Rs.2,50,000\/-  as compensation will be reasonable.  Even in
\nMotor Accident Claims where the death is due only to the accident or at  worst
\ndue  to  the  rashness  and negligence, such amounts or even more are fixed as
\ncompensation.  Here is a case where the victim who is admittedly not  a  rowdy
\nand  had  never  been  to the Police Station before, has been done to death by
\ninhuman and sadistic action by the party\/respondents.  Calculated on the basis
\nof the said amount as due in June, 1993, after 11 years at the rate of  6  per
\ncent per  annum,  the total amount payable will be Rs.4,15,000\/-.  By adding a
\nsum of Rs.15,000\/- towards funeral and other incidental  expenses,  the  total
\namount  payable  as on date inclusive of the interest amount can be reasonably
\nfixed at Rs.4,30,000\/-.  Deducting a sum  of  Rs.50,000\/-  which  was  already
\npaid,  the respondents are directed to pay a total sum of Rs.3,80,000\/- to the
\npetitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy  of
\nthis  order failing which interest shall be payable at the rate of 18 per cent
\nper annum, from this date.  The writ petition  is  allowed  accordingly.    No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
                After  the  delivery  of  the  Order,  the  learned Government
\nPleader seeks for directions to enable the Government to recover  the  amounts
\nfrom the party-respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   It  is  made clear that the initial responsibility to pay
\nthe amounts to the petitioner is on the first respondent and  it  is  open  to
\nthem to recover the same from the party-respondents in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Internet :Yes.\n<\/p>\n
sai\/-\n<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The State of Tamil Nadu,
\nrepresented by its Secretary,
\nHome Department,
\nFort St.  George,
\nMadras 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Director General of Police,
\nD.G.P.Office,
\nMylapore,
\nMadras 600 004.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Collector of Madras,
\nChepauk,
\nMadras-600 005.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Personal Assistant (General)
\nto the Collector of Madras,
\nChepauk,
\nMadras-600 005.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Commissioner of Police,
\nEgmore,
\nMadras-600 008.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Inspector of Police,
\nE-2, Royapettah Police Station,
\nMadras-600 014.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 04\/03\/2004 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM WRIT PETITION No.14879 of 1994 S.Meena .. Petitioner. -Vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-03T07:26:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"76 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-03T07:26:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":15130,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004\",\"name\":\"S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-03T07:26:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-03T07:26:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"76 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-03T07:26:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004"},"wordCount":15130,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004","name":"S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-03T07:26:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-4-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Meena vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93356","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}