Dismissed

Tamilarasi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep

Madras HC4 Jan 2017WP/11008/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner's widow seeking compensation and criminal prosecution regarding her husband's death during a police encounter. The Court refused to interfere with the Revenue Divisional Officer's report, which concluded the police acted in self-defence.

What did the court decide?

No costs. Writ petition dismissed as it is devoid of merits.

Tamilarasi Vs Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.01.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

W.P.No.11008 of 2003

¶6

Tamilarasi ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary Department of Home Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶9

2.The Director General of Police Chennai-600 004.

¶10

3.The Superintendent of Police Thanjavur District.

¶11

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Thanjavur District.

¶12

5.The Inspector of Police Thanjavur West Police Station Thanjavur. ...Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) to the petitioner, and to take suitable action by way of both criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings against the police officers responsible for the death of the petitioner's husband late Udayakumar within a time limit.

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Spl.GP (Writ) O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) to the petitioner and to take suitable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ action by way of both criminal prosecution and disciplinary

¶16

proceedings against the police officers responsible for the death of the petitioner's husband late Udayakumar within a time limit.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Writ) appearing for the respondents.

¶18

This writ petition has been filed by Tamilarasi, the widow of Udayan, seeking compensation from the Government for the death of her husband in police encounter on 10.09.2001. An offence of dacoity had occurred on 07.09.2001 within the limits of Thanjavur West Police Station and on the complaint given by one V.N.Raj, the victim, the Inspector of Police, Thanjavur West Police Station registered a case in Crime No.540 of 2001 under Sections 147, 149, 341 & 397 IPC on 07.09.2001 at 10.00 p.m. The police took up the investigation and arrested Udayan on 10.09.2001. During interrogation, he is said to have disclosed to the police about the involvement of himself and his associates in the offence. He is said to have further disclosed to the police that he would take them to the hide outs of his associates.

¶19

Therefore, in order to arrest his associates, Mr.Almaas Ali, Inspector of Police, Mr.Sethumani Madhavan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mr.Prabakaran, Police Constable 878 and Mr.Nagaraj, Police Constable 749 took Udayan with them in their jeep to a cemetery. On reaching the cemetery, according to the police, Udayan started fleeing and when Mr.Sethumani Madhavan, Sub-Inspector of Police went behind him, from inside a bush in the cemetery, it is alleged that Udayan took out a long knife and attacked Mr.Sethumani Madhavan, Sub-Inspector of Police and when he attempted to attack others, Mr.Almaas Ali, Inspector of Police opened fire thrice resulting in the death of Udayan. Based on the report of Mr.Almaas Ali, Inspector of Police, a case in Crime No.182 of 2001 under Section 174 Cr.P.C was registered. The investigation was taken over by the other police station and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur was informed. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur conducted inquest and sent the body for post-mortem by a team of doctors under video coverage. After post-mortem, the body was handed over to the relatives of Udayan. After the incident had taken place, People's Watch - Tamil Nadu initiated enquiry and submitted a report alleging that Udayan was killed in a fake police encounter. On the strength of the said report, the present writ petition was filed on 04.04.2003.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire story of the police is unbelievable for the following reasons. She contended that it is not necessary to take Udayan for investigation and he should have been remanded to custody immediately after arrest. She https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further submitted that according to Udayan, about seven of his

¶21

associates were involved in the offence under investigation and for the arrest of seven persons, it is unbelievable that the Inspector of Police would have taken only three other policemen along with him. She further contended that the Inspector of Police need not have fired three shots at Udayan.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer had conducted an enquiry and subsequently submitted the report dated 30.11.2001 to the Government. A copy of the report is furnished to this Court, which People's Watch - Tamil Nadu had obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶23

Mr.Almaas Ali, the Inspector of Police has filed his counter affidavit in this case denying the allegations made in the affidavit of Tamilarasi.

¶24

The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer was accepted by the Government and the petitioner had not chosen to challenge either the report or the order passed by the Government accepting the report and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶25

This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

¶26

Before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, 29 witnesses were examined. The doubts raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner have been considered in extenso by the Revenue Divisional Officer. This Court cannot appraise the evidence or the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur as an appellate authority. The scope of Judicial review in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where disputed questions of fact are involved is very limited.

¶27

However, this Court carefully perused the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur. Admittedly, a case in Crime No.540 of 2001 under Sections 147, 149, 341 & 397 IPC was registered on 07.09.2001 at 10.00 p.m. and investigation was taken up by Mr.Almaas Ali, Inspector of Police. Udayan was apprehended only on 10.09.2001. As stated above, during the course of interrogation, he made certain disclosure of facts which were hitherto unknown to the police and if there is any discovery based on the information supplied by the accused, the same is relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Only under those circumstances, when Udayan came forward to show the hide outs of his associates, the police decided to take him with them for collecting further evidence. One cannot expect all the dacoits to remain assembled in one place. It is common knowledge that after committing dacoity, the offendors will get separated and lie low for sometime. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, the police would not have expected to apprehend all

¶28

the companions of Udayan at the same time and from the same place.

¶29

As regards the allegation of the police that Udayan had attacked Mr.Sethumani Madhavan, Sub-Inspector of Police, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur has recorded the statement of Dr.A.Sivaraman (Witness No.7) who has stated that he examined Mr.Sethumani Madhavan, Sub-Inspector of Police on 10.09.2001 around 8.45 p.m. and at that time, he found a cut injury measuring 15 x 0.5 cms on his right forearm. When questioned by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, Dr.A.Sivaraman stated that the said injury would have occurred when attacked with aruval. This is not a mere abrasion but a cut injury which prima facie shows that Mr.Sethumani Madhavan, Sub-Inspector of Police, would have sustained this injury in his fore arm as a reflex defence to avoid injury on his head. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur specifically enquired and put the following questions to Mr.Almaas Ali. The relevant questions and answer put by Mr.Almaas Ali are extracted hereunder:

¶30

nkYk;. tprhuizapd; nghJ mthplk; nfl;fg;gl;l nfs;tpfSk; mtw;Wf;F mth; mspj;j gjpy;fspd; tpguk; tUkhW :

¶31

nfs;tp :: - Jg;ghf;fp gpunahfk; bra;ag;gLtjw;F Kd;g[ vd;bdd;d Kd;bdr;rhpf;if bra;ag;gl ntz;Lbkd;W tpjp cs;sJ> mij eP';fs; filgpoj;Jph;fsh>

¶32

gjpy; :: - njitahd Kd;bdr;rhpf;iffs; bra;j gpd;g[ mJt[k; mtrpak; Vw;gl;lhbyhHpa njitahd mstpw;F kl;Lnk Jg;ghf;fp gpunahfk; bra;ag;gl ntz;Lk; vd;gJ tpjp/ ,e;j tpjp vdf;F ed;whf bjhpa[k;/ 10/09/2001 md;W ,ut[ 8/00 kzpf;F ele;j rk;gtj;jpy; v';fSld; miHj;J te;j vjphp cjad; vd;gth; jpObud;W Xo RLfhl;oy; ,Ue;j rkhjp mUnf , Ue;J xU mhpthis vLj;J cjtp Ma;thsh; jpU/nrJkzp khjtid fhag;gLj;jp gpd;g[ vd;ida[k; jhf;f Kay ehd; mtiu ruzilar; bra;J vr;rhpf;if bra;Jk; nfshky; kPz;Lk; vd;ida[k; vdJ ghh;l;oapdiua[k; bfhiy btwpa[ld; mhpthshy; jhf;f Kay v';fs; capiu fhg;ghw;Wk; bghUl;L nkw;go cjaid nehf;fpr; Rl;nld;/

¶33

nfs;tp: :: - cjadhy; jhf;fg;gl;l cjtp Ma;thsh; epiyFiye;J rhpe;J tpl;ljhfr; brhd;dPh;fs;> mg;nghJ eP';fSk; cldpUe;j fhtyh;fSk; nrh;e;J nkw;go cjaid Jg;ghf;fpahy; Rlhky; gpog;gjw;F nkw;go Kaw;rp bra;jPh;fsh>

¶34

gjpy: :: - nkw;go cjadhy; jhf;fg;gl;l cjtp Ma;thsh; epiyFiye;J tpGe;j nghJ ehDk; kw;w fhtyh;fSk; mtUf;F gpd;dhy; Rkhh; 10 mo Jhuj;jpy; ,Ue;njhk;/ clnd ehDk; kw;w fhtyh;fSk; nkw;go cjaid beU';fpg; gpof;f Kay mth; fpl;l te;jhy; c';fisa[k; btl;of; bfhy;yhky; tplkhl;nld; vd;W Twpf;bfhz;L jd; ifapy; ,U;ej mhpthshy; v';fisa[k; btl;l Kaw;rpj;jhh;/ clnd ehd; v';fsJ fhtyh;fs; kw;Wk; cjtp Ma;thsh; kw;Wk; vd; capiua[k; fhg;ghw;w ntz;oa fl;lhaj;jpdhYk; v';fis jw;fhj;J bfhs;tjw;Fk; nkw;go cjaid gpof;f ntW ve;j tHpa [kpd;wp mtiu Jg;gghf;fpahy; Rlntz;oa eph;ge;jk; neh;e;jJ/

¶35

Jg;ghf;fp gpunahfk; bra;jpUf;f Koahjh> Vd; K:d;W ut[z;Lfs; cgnahfk; bra;jPh;fs;> K:d;W ut[z;LfSf;F Fiwthf cgnahfk; bra;jpUf;fTlhjh>

¶36

gjpy; :: - cjtp Ma;thsh; jpU/nrJkzp khjtd; cjadhy; jhf;fg;gl;L fPnH rhpe;j epiyapYk; cjad; kPz;Lk; mtiu bfhiy bra;a[k; Kaw;rpa[ld; jhf;f Kaw;rpj;j nghJk; vd;ida[k; kw;w fhtyh;fisa[k; bfhiy btwpnahL jhf;f Kw;gl;l nghJ cjaid nehf;fp mth; jd;dplkpUe;J mhpthis fPnH nghLk; tiuapYk; my;yJ mtd; jd; epiy ,Hf;Fk; tiuapYk; Jg;ghf;fp gpunahfk; elj;j ntz;Lbkd;W vz;zp Jg;ghf;fp gpunahfk; bra;njd;/ mtd; mhpthis nghl;L fPnH tpGe;j gpd;dh;jhd; ehd; K:d;W ut[z;Lfs; gpunahfk; bra;jij mwpe;J bfhz;nld;/ ehd; cjaid nehf;fp Rl;l nghJ mtd; mhpths; itj;jpUe;j ifia nehf;fpj;jhd; Tl;nld;/ Mdhy; mtd; v';fis bfhiy bra;a[k; nehf;Fld; bra;j bra;iffspdhy; (K:t;bkd;l;!;) mtdJ clk;gpy; capUf;Fg; ghjfk; tpistpf;ff; Toa gFjpapy; gl;L ,wg;g [ neh;e;jJ/ kw;wgo nkw;go cjaid caph; nghf ntz;Lk; vd;w vz;zj;jpy; Jg;ghf;fp gpunahfk; bra;atpy;iy/

¶37

Admittedly, from the answers given by Mr.Almaas Ali, Inspector of Police, it is seen that the entire incident had taken place a trice and in the moment of tension, he has opened fire thrice, of which, one bullet had gone astray.

¶38

During the Revenue Divisional Officer's enquiry it came to light that Udayan was involved in 20 cases beginning from 1996, of which, four cases were under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and further, he was also detained under the Goondas Act earlier. Of course, that cannot be a reason for justifying the police act. Based on a thorough enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer has come to the conclusion that in the given circumstance, the police had no other option, but to open fire in defence.

¶39

In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer do not call for interference.

¶40

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.

Sd/-

Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Home Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶48

2.The Director General of Police Chennai-600 004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶49

3.The Superintendent of Police Thanjavur District.

¶50

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Thanjavur District.

¶51

5.The Inspector of Police Thanjavur West Police Station Thanjavur.

¶52

+1cc to Government Pleader sr.905

¶53

+1cc to M/s.Giridhar & Sai Associates Advocates sr.1338

¶54

W.P No.11008 of 2003
nrjk(co)
ss(23/01/2017)

¶55

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Tamilarasi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilarasi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Annapoorna Vs Union of India

Pulavar Patchaimuthu, Vs Mr.Periaswamy

M.Duraisamy and 3 Others Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

C.Kasthuri Vs Mr.Rajendran

P.Kuppan, Vs the Special Officer

S. Palanisamy Vs the Land Commsnr, O/O Land