S.Nuooman vs G.K.Mohanan Pillai
2021 Latest Caselaw 21 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

 MONDAY,THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/14TH POUSHA, 1942

                WP(C).No.13225 OF 2013(C)


PETITIONERS:

     1      S.NUOOMAN,S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN RAWTHER,
            AGED 39,KAVINTE KIZHAKKETHIL,
            NEAR K.S.R.T.C, PANDALAM,
            PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

     2      R.MURUKESAN, S/O.K.RAGHAVAN,
            AGED 42, DWARAKA,KULAKKADA EAST P.O.,
            KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR K.H.

RESPONDENTS:

     1      G.K.MOHANAN PILLAI,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAPILLAI,
            AGED 51, KOTTUVILA HOUSE,
            ELANGAMANGALAM,ENATH P.O.,
            PATHANAMTHITTA-691 526.

     2      THE SECRETARY,KERALA STATE HUMAN
            RIGHTS COMMISSION, M.P.APPAN ROAD,
            VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

     3      STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
            THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001.

            R1 BY ADV. SRI.ANANDAN PILLAI
            R2 BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN DAVIS
            R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RASHMI K.M.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 04-01-2021 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC No.13225/2013
                                       :2:




                           N. NAGARESH, J.

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                      W.P.(C) No.13225 of 2013

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
               Dated this the 4th day of January, 2021

                            JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Petitioners 1 and 2 who are Sub Inspector of

Police and Civil Police Officer respectively, have filed this writ

petition seeking to quash Ext.P1 recommendation of the

Kerala State Human Rights Commission and to command

the Commission to reconsider Ext.P1 recommendation after

giving an opportunity to adduce evidence and of hearing.

2. The petitioners state that the 1 st respondent filed a

complaint before the Kerala State Human Rights

Commission alleging that three police officers came to his

residence on 09.03.2011 at 9.30 p.m. to wreck vengeance

against the 1st respondent. The police officers asked him to WPC No.13225/2013

come to the police station stating that Sub Inspector wants to

meet him. The 1st respondent replied that he shall come in

the morning. However, the 2nd petitioner abused the 1st

respondent using filthy language and forcefully taken him to

the police station. The 1st respondent was beaten up. He

was taken to the Government Hospital. The 1 st respondent

said that the Doctor noted in the OP ticket that the 1 st

respondent had grievances against the police officials. The

1st respondent said that the police officials forcefully taken

away the OP ticket from him.

3. The 1st respondent alleged that next day at 8 a.m.,

the Sub Inspector came to the police station and beaten the

1st respondent three times in his chest, right femur and

backside of his body and caused injuries to him. The

petitioners obtained signature of a lady named Syamala in a

concocted complaint against the 1st respondent. The 1st

respondent alleged that he was not provided with food.

While producing the 1st respondent before the court, he was

harassed physically and mentally. The 1st respondent was WPC No.13225/2013

remanded to Sub Jail, Pathanamthitta from where he was

admitted to Pathanamthitta hospital consequent to chest

pain. The Doctor noticed anomalies in ECG and advised

cardiac checkup. On 15.03.2011, when the District Judge,

Pathanamthitta visited the Sub Jail, the 1 st respondent

narrated the facts to the District Judge and on the advice of

the District Judge, the 1st respondent was admitted to

Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum on 16.03.2011. He

was discharged only on 31.03.2011. The 1 st respondent

sought punitive action against the petitioners.

4. The petitioners state that the Kerala State Human

Rights Commission obtained a report from the Deputy Police

Superintendent. The Deputy Police Superintendent stated

that there was a quarrel in the residence of the 1 st

respondent. His neighbour one Syamala provided shelter to

the grandmother of the 1st respondent and infuriated by the

said act of Syamala, the 1st respondent reached the house of

Syamala and beaten her up with a wooden piece. On

receiving information about the same, three Civil Police WPC No.13225/2013

Officers reached the spot and took the 1 st respondent into

custody. The 1st respondent was produced before the court

and a chargesheet was filed against him. The Deputy

Superintendent of Police reported that there was no police

assault or torture in the police station.

5. The State Human Rights Commission issued

notices to the 1st petitioner-Sub Inspector, the 2 nd petitioner

and two other Civil Police Officers named Babu and Harilal.

They filed objections denying the allegations. In their

objection, it was specifically pointed out that the 1 st

respondent has consumed alcohol at the time of the acts

done by him. As the police officers felt that the 1 st respondent

will again attack Syamala, they took the 1 st respondent to the

police station. On the way to the police station, the 1 st

respondent himself removed the plaster from his wound

which resulted in bleeding. The Doctor who attended the 1 st

respondent had noticed this and also stated that there was

smell of alcohol in the breath of the 1 st respondent. Crime

No.58/2011 was registered against the 1 st respondent for WPC No.13225/2013

offences punishable under Sections 452, 324 and 427 of the

IPC. Chargesheet was also filed before the court.

6. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission

examined the 1st respondent and the petitioners. The

Commission passed Ext.P1 order directing the petitioners to

pay ₹25,000/- and ₹15,000/- respectively to the 1 st

respondent by way of compensation and in default, directed

the Inspector General of Police to initiate appropriate legal

action against the petitioners. The petitioners contended that

Ext.P1 order is illegal and arbitrary.

7. The petitioners urged that the report filed by the

Deputy Police Superintendent shows that there was a quarrel

in the residence of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent

had beaten Syamala with a wooden piece. It was on getting

the information about the incident that the police reached the

spot. The 1st respondent was taken into custody and after

completing medical examination, he was produced before

the court and chargesheet was submitted. The medical

examination revealed that the 1st respondent had consumed WPC No.13225/2013

alcohol at the relevant time. The 1 st respondent is an activist

of a non-governmental organisation and had filed numerous

complaints against police. The Human Rights Commission

miserably failed to consider the said aspects.

8. The petitioners further urged that a perusal of the

complaint filed by the 1st respondent would make it clear that

there was no circumstances in which a police torture has

occurred. Only due to the previous enmity between the 1 st

respondent and various police officials, a false complaint was

filed by the 1st respondent. The Human Rights Commission

ought to have noted that only after conducting medical

examination and questioning several witnesses that a

chargesheet was filed before the court below. The

out-patient ticket issued from the General Hospital

establishes drunkenness of the 1st respondent. It would show

that the 1st respondent had consumed alcohol at the relevant

point of time and the wound seen in his body was much

older.

9. The Human Rights Commission has passed the WPC No.13225/2013

Ext.P1 on improper subjective satisfaction, contended the

petitioners. The petitioners have good service records. No

other persons have filed any complaint against the

petitioners till date. The 1st respondent had filed the

complaint to wreck vengeance against police officials, and on

an experimental basis. The appreciation of evidence by the

Commission suffers from perversity and illegality, contended

the petitioners. There was no evidence whatsoever to come

to a conclusion that petitioners caused injury to the 1st

respondent. In the circumstances, Ext.P1 recommendations

of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission are liable to

be set aside.

10. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit. The 1 st

respondent alleged that in his capacity as Director of an

NGO, he had filed many complaints against the corruption

and injustices on the part of the police officers. The police

officers therefore were inimical to the 1st respondent. After

taking the 1st respondent into custody, the police obtained a

concocted complaint from the neighbour of the 1st WPC No.13225/2013

respondent. This was specifically noted by the Human Rights

Commission.

11. The 1st respondent stated that in the previous

night itself he was tortured in the police station. He was taken

to Government Hospital. On 15.03.2011, when the District

Judge came to the Sub Jail, Pathanamthitta for inspection,

the 1st respondent explained incidents to him and showed the

injuries suffered by him to the District Judge. Understanding

the seriousness of the injuries, the District Judge directed to

refer the 1st respondent to Medical College, Trivandrum. The

1st respondent was taken to Medical College on 16.03.2011

in the Department of Cardiology. The 1 st respondent had to

be treated there as in-patient till 31.03.2011.

12. The 1st respondent filed Crl.M.P. No.3483 of 2011

before the JFCM Court against the petitioners seeking their

prosecution. The Magistrates Court dismissed the petition

holding that no sanction as per Section 197 of the Cr. P.C.

was obtained to prosecute the petitioners. The 1 st

respondent thereupon filed Crl.R.P. No.979 of 2019 before WPC No.13225/2013

this Court. This Court has set aside the order of the learned

Magistrate and remitted the matter back for reconsideration.

The order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission is

just and proper and is not liable to be interfered with,

contended the 1st respondent.

13. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the first respondent and learned Government

Pleader representing the 3rd respondent.

14. Ext.P1 proceedings of the Kerala State Human

Rights Commission would show that on the basis of the

complaint filed by the 1st respondent, the petitioners were

issued notice. The petitioners filed their respective

objections, which were considered in detail by the Human

Rights Commission. The 2nd petitioner adduced oral evidence

before the Commission. The 1st respondent was examined

by the Human Rights Commission. The 1 st petitioner was

also examined. The 2nd petitioner submitted before the

Commission that he has nothing more to submit other than

what is stated in his objection.

WPC No.13225/2013

15. Appreciating the oral and documentary evidence

adduced, the Human Rights Commission noted that Smt.

Syamala who was the neighbour of the 1 st respondent was

inimical to the 1st respondent. The brothers of Smt. Syamala

were convicted for manufacturing illicit liquor. The 1 st

respondent had filed a civil case against the said Syamala

and the 1st respondent had won the case. The 1 st respondent

had also filed various complaints against police officers and

hence the police had animosity towards the 1 st respondent.

16. The Human Rights Commission noted that the

version of the police was that the mother of the 1 st

respondent had a verbal duel with the 1 st respondent and she

rushed to the house of Smt. Syamala. The mother, however,

stated before the Human Rights Commission that it is not

true. The mother stated that she had no issues with the 1 st

respondent. The Human Rights Commission further noted

that the version of the police is that the 1 st respondent was

taken into custody at 9.30 in the night and was let off during

the midnight. A complaint was obtained from the aforesaid WPC No.13225/2013

Syamala to the effect that the 1st respondent abused her

thereafter. The Commission noted that this will not happen

in the ordinary course of things and even if such an incident

had happened, it should have been mentioned in the

complaint filed by Syamala. The FI Statement given by the

said Syamala does not indicate any such incident.

17. As regards the drunkenness certificate, the

Human Rights Commission noted that even though the 1 st

respondent smelt alcohol, it was stated in the certificate that

he was not under the influence of alcohol. The Human

Rights Commission disbelieved the version of the petitioners

that bleeding occurred as plaster was forcibly removed by

the 1st respondent himself from his body. The Commission

noted that the police officers had an axe to grind against the

1st respondent. The Human Rights Commission also noted

that within five days of the remand, the 1 st respondent

disclosed to the District Judge as to the cause of injuries.

18. Taking into account the entire materials available,

the State Human Rights Commission held that the action of WPC No.13225/2013

the petitioners in forcibly taking the 1 st respondent from his

residence and put him in lock up even in the absence of a

crime registered against the 1st respondent, cannot be

justified. The Human Rights Commission also found that the

medical certificates and other evidence available would show

that the petitioners have not conducted themselves properly

to the 1st respondent. The Human Rights Commission found

that though the 1st respondent had made complaint against

other police officers also, the evidence available is not

sufficient to establish guilt on the part of other police officers.

However, the Commission noted that there is sufficient

evidence to hold that the petitioners are guilty.

19. A perusal of Ext.P1 proceedings of the Kerala

State Human Rights Commission would show that the

petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to defend the

case and cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioners failed

to bring out anything to discredit the evidence adduced by

the 1st respondent. There is no violation of principles of

natural justice. Opportunity to defend the case was not WPC No.13225/2013

denied to the petitioners. The findings of the State Human

Rights Commission arrived at on the basis of the evidence

available, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.

In the circumstances, this Court does not find any

illegality in Ext.P1 order of the Kerala State Human Rights

Commission. The writ petition is therefore without any merit

and it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/28.12.2020 WPC No.13225/2013

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 26/12/2012 IN H.R.M.P.1634/201 PASSED BY THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.

EXHIBIT P2 THE COVERING LETTER BEARING NO.HRMP NO.1634/11/HRC DATED 27TH FEBRUARY 2013 FORWARDED BY THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT INCLUDING COPY OF F.I.R.,CASE DIARY, STATEMENT OF WITNESSES AND THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES IN CRIME NO.58/2011 REGISTERED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY OF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM, DATED 31.03.2011(DISCHARGE SUMMARY).

EXHIBIT R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF JFCM COURT ADOOR, DATED 09.10.2018.

EXHIBIT R1(c) A TRUE COPY OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN CRL.R.P.979/2019 DATED 16.07.2020.