(Common Prayer: To issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in S.H.R.C.No.3674 of 2009 vide order dated 31.01.2018 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.)

Common Order:

N. Dilip Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved by the common order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the State Human Rights Commission, these writ petitions have been filed.

2. The petitioners are the Sub-Inspector of Police, Head Constable and Police Constable attached to Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District. The second respondent/complainant lodged a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission, which was numbered as S.H.R.C. Case No.3674 of 2009. The State Human Rights Commission, by the impugned order dated 31.01.2018, awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- and directed the Government to recover the said amount from the writ petitioners. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.

3. The case of the complainant is that one Rasiya, daughter of Karuppiah, and one Murugan, son of Subramanian, fell in love with each other and they eloped because of the non-acceptance of their relationship by their respective parents and in this regard, a police complaint was given by the father of the girl, namely Mr. Karuppiah, which was received in CSR No.160 of 2009 and later a criminal case in Crime No.109 of 2009 was registered. During the course of investigation, the police came to notice about the involvement of two particular mobile phone numbers and upon tracking those numbers, they identified that one of the numbers stands in the name of PW2 Shankar and PW2 Shankar, in turn, had informed the police that he had given the said SIM card and mobile phone to his brother-in-law, Mr.Velmurugan, complainant. Whereas, the grievance of Mr.Velmurugan, the complainant before the State Human Rights Commission, is that, in this regard, he was taken to the police station on 17.04.2009 at 17.30 hours and was retained in police custody and was physically assaulted and grievous injury was caused to him and even his left ear was severely damaged and there was serious bleeding from his left ear. He would also state that he was immediately let off on the same day, namely 17.04.2009, around 22.00 hours and he immediately went to the Ilayangudi Government Hospital for treatment and he had informed the doctor at Ilayangudi Government Hospital that he was physically assaulted by the police party when he was detained in the Ilayangudi police station.

4. The complaint would also contend that the police party compelled him to get discharged from the Government Hospital and forced him to go to a private hospital. However, he went to the Government Hospital, Ilayangudi, again on 18.04.2009 at 11.30 hours and thereafter he was referred to the Government Hospital at Sivagangai and the Accident Register and other medical records available from the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, have been produced as Ex.P1 series and these materials, along with the statements of PW1 and PW2, would drive home the guilt of the respondent party that they had violated the human rights committed upon Mr.Velmurugan.

5. Per contra, the police officers who were arrayed as respondents before the Human Rights Commission and who are the petitioners before this Court could contend that, pursuant to the criminal case in Crime No.109 of 2009 registered on the file of the Ilayangudi Police Station with regard to the alleged kidnap of Rasiya, daughter of Karuppiah, by Murugan, they had been enquiring the same and they conducted an inquiry in this regard and there was no physical injury or harm that was caused to the complainant, Mr.Velmurugan, during the course of such investigation by the police. Further, they would refer to the evidence of the doctor at Government Hospital at Sivagangai, who was examined as RW1 and through him Exhibits R1 and R2 were also marked on the side of the respondents.

6. The Human Rights Commission, on the materials available on record, had arrived at a conclusion that the respondents before the Human Rights Commission, namely the writ petitioners, had committed violation of human rights of the complainant and imposed and directed the payment of a compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant, Mr. Velmurugan, and ordered for the recovery of the same from the writ petitioners/respondents 1,2,3 before the Human Rights Commission. This order of the Human Rights Commission dated 31.01.2018, passed in SHRC No.3674 of 2009, is under challenge in this writ petition.

7. We heard Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Mr.O.R.Gokul Abimanyu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

8. Mr. R. Anand, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, would submit that the first medical record, that is, the Accident Register that would have been recorded in the Government Hospital, Ilayangudi, is not produced, rather, an improvised version given by the complainant as an afterthought before the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, is alone produced. Further, even the medical record does not support the claim of the complainant that he suffered a bleeding injury to his left ear and the injury found on his person is also recorded as simple by the Government doctor, namely contusion upon buttocks. Simple injury of a contusion in the buttocks is alone recorded and this is possible to have been caused to the complainant because of his occupation as well, which is that of a loadman and a minidor operator. He would also contend that the very evidence of the doctor, namely, Government Hospital at Ilayangudi, before whom the complainant claims to have admitted himself at the aforesaid point of time, would also does not support the case of the complainant. The doctor is categorical in his statement that the victim came on 18.04.2009 around 00.15 hours and on his own volition he left the hospital without intimation to the doctors on 18.04.2009 at 02.00 hours and he had contradicted himself even while narrating the manner in which he sustained the injury. The crossexamination of the doctor, RW1, by the complainant, would also demonstrate that the complainant had accepted that he left the Government Hospital without informing the hospital authorities and that there is no material to substantiate that he was referred by the Government Hospital at Ilayangudi to the Government Hospital at Sivagangai and based on the exaggerated version given by the complainant, the Human Rights Commission had arrived at an erroneous conclusion and they have been dutiful police officers who had discharged their duties in the manner of investigation of Crime No.109 of 2009 and there is no independent or supportive materials available to support the conclusion arrived at by the State Human Rights Commission. Though the name of the complainant is printed, the complainant has not chosen to appear and contest the matter.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Human Rights Commission would contend that the Human Rights Commission has drawn a proper conclusion and the very fact that there is at least a simple injury, which is a contusion on the buttocks, is available to demonstrate that the complainant had suffered injuries at the hands of the police authorities, namely, the writ petitioners and therefore, the order of the Human Rights Commission does not warrant any interference.

10. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

11. Admittedly, the first medical record, namely, the Accident Register said to have been recorded at the Government Hospital, Ilayangudi, has not been produced and the subsequent medical record does not support the complainant’s allegation of a bleeding injury to his left ear, but only records a simple contusion on the buttocks. Further, the evidence of RW1, the Doctor, does not substantiate that the complainant was referred from the Government Hospital, Ilayangudi, to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai. In the absence of any independent or supporting material to establish that the injuries were caused by the writ petitioners during the investigation in Crime No.109 of 2009, the conclusion arrived at by the State Human Rights Commission cannot be sustained.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.01.2018 passed in S.H.R.C. Case No.3674 of 2009 is set aside and these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.