AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—John Joseph and others, who are arrayed as accused in Crime No. 917 of 1997 on the file of the Kuzhithurai
Police Station, filed writ petitions in W.P.No.15595 of 1997 seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to entrust the
investigation in the above crime number to some other police official and W.P.Nos.1569, 1570 and 4283 of 1998 seeking to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing of the charge sheet taken on file for the offences under Sections 366 read with 511, 376, 376 read with
511, 201, 302, 312 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and for directing for impartial investigation by the C.B.I., as the investigation done by the respondent-local
police was mala fide.
Besides these writ petitions, John Joseph filed another writ petition in W.P. No.15596 of 1997 seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing
the State of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent, to conduct enquiry into the conduct of the respondents 8 to 11, viz., Premkumar, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Nagercoil, Panneerselvam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagerkoil Town, Sailesh Yadav, Joint
Superintendent of Police, Thuckalay and Kaliyamoorthy, Inspector of Police and other police officials in the act of torture and inhuman treatment
committed on the persons arrested in Crime No. 917 of 1997 on the file of the Kuzhithurai Police Station and to prosecute them in accordance
with law.
Seeking for the similar relief, one Nirmala and her son T. Darwin filed W.P.No.18995 of 1997 for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing
the first respondent to take action against the respondents 4 to 7, the police officials and another for the illegal acts of torture committed by them
and to punish them in accordance with law.
The parents of one Gilbert Raj, the deceased, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1285 of 1998 seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to hand over the remains of Gilbert Raj to them for burial in accordance with Christian rites.
According to the respondents, a case was registered in Crime No.917/97 on the complaint of one Tmt. Franciscal Jeya on 5.9.1987 for the
offences under Sections 366 read with 511, 376, 376 read with 511, 201, 302, 312 and 506(ii) I.P.C. against the petitioner and others. As per
the complaint, the complainant�s husband Joseph Alphones was working as a Managing Trustee of the Trust called Charismatic Centre,
Marthandam of which John Joseph is the actual administrator of the Trust. The complainant�s daughter Dayana was admitted in the hostel at the
Charismatic Centre for education. John Joseph one day attempted to commit rape on her. Then, she escaped from the hostel and informed her
parents. When John Joseph was questioned by the parents, they were threatened that they would be done away with. One Gilbert Raj aged about
18 years working in the Charismatic Centre was earlier beaten to death by John Joseph and other accused, inmates of the Centre, for having
refused to do certain illegal acts. The investigation conducted on the above complaint disclosed that there was an attempt to commit rape by John
Joseph (A1) on Dayana and he also forced the young boys to have sexual intercourse with one Rani (A4) and when the said Gilbert Raj refused to
do the same, he was beaten to death. Then, the body was buried inside the Ashram.
The main point urged by the counsel for the petitioners for directing for the fresh investigation by the C.B.I. or some other independent agency is
that the entire investigation was mala fide and since the loan amounts obtained by Charismatic Centre run by A1 from the Banks were not repaid in
time, a false complaint has been filed against the petitioners at the instance of the Bank officials and thereby, they have been falsely implicated in a
serious case. It is further contended that the accused were arrested on 4.9.1997 itself by the respondents police and they were taken to the
different police stations and beaten brutally and confession statements were obtained from them under threat and coercion and arrest was shown
only on 5.9.1997.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.
As far as the prayer for fresh investigation by C.B.I. is concerned, I am not inclined to direct for the same mainly because the investigation of this
case has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed and taken on file by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kuzhithurai and the
case has been committed to Sessions and the same has been numbered as S.C.No.25 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Nagercoil and as such, the case is ripe for trial.
Though the counsel for the petitioners would bring to the notice of this Court the various suspicious features with reference to the manner of
investigation conducted by the respondent police to indicate that it was a mala fide investigation, at this stage, I am unable to hold that those
features are sufficient to hold that the same is mala fide and to direct the C.B.I. to take up the case for investigation. Consequently, the request for
fresh investigation is rejected.
However, it is open to the counsel for the petitioners to highlight those suspicious features for establishing that the investigation is mala fide
during the course of trial. Similarly, this Court would not incline to quash the proceedings on the ground that it was a false case as the same has to
be urged only before the trial Court. Therefore, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15595 of 1997 and 1569, 1570, 4283 of 1998 seeking for directing
the transfer of investigation and for quashing of the charge sheet are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
As far as the prayer in W.P.No.1285 of 1998 made by the parents of Gilbert Raj, the deceased, for direction to hand over the remains of the
deceased for burial is concerned, the remains can be directed to be handed over, as the Government Pleader does not object to the same and
accordingly directed.
However, it would be appropriate to deal with the other writ petition, namely W.P.No.15596 of 1997 separately.
The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the State Government, the first respondent herein to initiate enquiry against the respondents 8 to 11,
the police officials for having tortured the petitioner and others and to prosecute them.
The contents of the said petition are as follows:-
(a) The petitioner John Joseph was the Founder Trustee of Charismatic Service Trust. He entrusted the administration of the Trust to one Joseph
Alphonse, the Managing Trustee. The said Managing Trustee borrowed several lakhs from the Banks as loans and could not give back the same.
(b) In the meantime, the said Joseph Alphonse disassociated himself from the Trust. He lodged a complaint through his wife Franciscal Jeya with
the police implicating the petitioner and others with false allegations. On 4.9.1997 at 5.30 P.M., the respondents 8 and 9, viz., Premkumar and
Panneerselvam, the Deputy Superintendents of Police along with others came to the Centre and took the petitioner, Santhana Rajan, Maria John,
Gnanakkan, Sis. Wiselin Femina Rose and Sis. Sahayarani Jeyamary to the Aaralvaimozhi (Aaramboly) Police Station. There, they all were
assaulted by the police. Then they were taken to the Kottar Police Station and again beaten up. Thereafter, they were taken to Armed Reserve
Camp at Maravankudiyuruppu. Sis. Wiselin Femina Rose and Sis. Sahayarani Jeyamary were stripped naked and paraded before the petitioner
and others and they were again beaten up. They were compelled to give false statements as if the petitioner John Joseph had illicit intimacy with
them.
(c) Two boys were brought to the Armed Reserve Camp and they were also compelled to give statement that they had sexual connection with
them at the instance of the petitioner.
(d) On 5.9.1997, they were taken to Thuckalay Police Station and then to Kuzhithurai Police Station. Ultimately, they were taken back to the
Charismatic Service Centre and they were compelled to give a false confession statement implicating themselves by giving interview to T.V. and
Press.
(e) They were produced on 6.9.1997 before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kuzhithurai in Crime No.917 of 1997 for the offences under Sections
366 read with 511, 376, 376 read with 511, 201, 302, 312 and 506(ii) I.P.C. This case was registered as if the boy Gilbert Raj, since refused to
have sexual connection with the Sisters, was beaten up to death and buried in the Ashram. Since the petitioner and others were brutally beaten up
and false statements were obtained from them and some of the other witnesses, they prayed for a direction to be issued to the Government to take
action against the officials, who tortured the petitioner and others.
This writ petition, namely W.P.No.15596 of 1997 was admitted on 15.10.1997. Justice E. Padmanabhan, as prayed for in the petition in
W.M.P.No.24752 of 1997 in W.P. No.15596 of 1997, by the order dated 17.10.1997 directed a Team constituted by the Dean of the
Tirunelveli Medical College to examine the five injured accused, namely John Joseph, Santhana Rajan, Maria John, Sis. Wiselin Femina Rose and
Sis. Sahayarani, in the presence of the Doctor nominated by the accused persons and give treatment to them and send a report to this Court.
Accordingly, on 25.10.1997, the medical report was sent stating that all the accused were examined and several visible injuries were found on
John Joseph and Sis. Wiselin Femina Rose.
On 7.11.1997, Justice E. Padmanabhan on going through the medical report and after hearing the counsel for parties thought it fit to order for
an enquiry, passed an interim order in W.P. No. 15596 of 1997 directing the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli to record the evidence of 10
persons, five accused and five witnesses, viz., Fr. John Joseph (A1), Bro. Sandana Rajan (A2), Bro. Maria John (A3), Sis. Rani @ Sahaya Rani
Jaya Rani (A4), Sis. Femi @ Wiseline Femina Rose (A5), Mr. Gnanakan, Mr. Johnson, Advocate, Nagercoil, Mr. A.P. Rajan, Advocate,
Thuckalay, Mr. Srikumar, Advocate, Kuzhithurai and Mr. Hasan, Proprietor, Hotel New Paradise, Marthandam and send his report giving the
finding with reference to the alleged torture or excess by the police. It is further observed in the order that it is open to the respondent police
officials to cross-examine those witnesses and also to produce such record or witnesses or materials in support of the defence.
In pursuance of the order dated 7.11.1997 of this Court, all the 10 persons were examined and cross-examined and a report of the findings
along with the deposition of the 10 persons was sent on 18.12.1997 to this Court by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. After receipt of the
report, the parties were permitted to file their affidavits and counter-affidavits and accordingly, the additional affidavits and additional counter
affidavits were filed. Counsel for the parties also were permitted to peruse the depositions and report.
On the basis of the depositions given before the Enquiry Officer, the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, it is contended by the counsel
for the petitioner that there are prima facie materials to show that the injuries found on the body of the accused were caused by the police officers
and as such, action has to be taken against the said officials.
On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner and other accused never gave any such statement regarding
torture either at the time of initial remand or at any time during the period of extension of remand. Even when the Media persons questioned the
arrested accused, they did not tell them about the torture. Therefore, the alleged torture and excess by the police as given in the depositions are not
true and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
It is relevant to recall at this juncture that when this Court passed an order on 7.11.1997 directing for recording evidence from 10 named
persons on behalf of the petitioner''s side, an opportunity was given to the respondent-police officials to cross-examine the witnesses by engaging
their Advocates and to produce such records or witnesses or materials in support of their defence.
In pursuance of this order, the witnesses 1 to 10 were examined on behalf of the petitioner''s side between 21.11.1997 and 28.11.1997. All
the 10 witnesses mentioned above were examined in chief and cross at length. Though the opportunity was given to the respondent-police officials
to produce their witnesses, they did not choose to produce any witness on their behalf.
However, Ex.R1 was marked on behalf of defence through one Sri Kumar, examined as 9th witness on the side of the petitioner to show that
he is one of the Members of the Human Rights Protective Organisation and a resolution was passed on 27.9.1997 requesting the Government to
withdraw the case which was falsely foisted against John Joseph and four others. Except this document, no other materials were placed before the
enquiry Court by the respondent-police officials to establish their defence that there was no torture or excess on the part of the police, while
arresting the accused. Even the Ex.R1 referred to above would not help the defence in any way and on the other hand, it supports the case of the
petitioner.
This Court specifically ordered in the above petition directing the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli to record the evidence of both parties and
send his report of the findings on the basis of the evidence placed before him. The report of the findings along with the copies of the deposition was
sent to the Court on 18.12.1997.
It is noticed from the report of the findings that the Enquiry Officer was unable to come to conclusion or give specific finding, on the other
hand, he pointed out various contradictions between the affidavits filed in the writ petition before this Court and the deposition made before him, by
way of comparison. This is beyond the the scope of enquiry. He was never asked to compare their depositions with the affidavits filed before the
Court.
However, it is mentioned in the report that though the injuries were found on the deponents while deposing before the enquiry Court, the
definite conclusion cannot be arrived at, in the absence of examination of the Team of Doctors, who examined the witnesses and issued the wound
certificates on 25.10.1997 giving the details of the injuries on some of the witnesses.
The very purpose of directing the Principal District Judge is to find out whether these persons were illegally detained on 4.9.1997 and whether
these people sustained injuries when they were in police custody till 6.9.1997. As found in the report, these injured persons were examined on
10.9.1997 itself. The certificate issued by the Doctor on 10.9.1997 also would show that there were injuries on these persons. Even though there
are materials through the deposition of the injured witnesses, especially when the ladies Sis. Sahayarani and Sis. Femina Rose have made specific
allegation in their depositions that two D.S. Ps. Premkumar and Panneerselvam outraged their modesty and assaulted them and caused injuries on
their breasts and private parts by removing the sarees and petticoats, it is quite unfortunate that the Enquiry Officer was not able to arrive at any
definite conclusion. Under those circumstances, this Court is constrained to go through the deposition copies.
According to the petitioner, five persons sustained injuries. Out of them, two are women. As per the medical report sent by the Team of
Doctors as directed by this Court, the Doctors found various visible injuries both on Femina Rose and John Joseph on the date of examination on
25.10.1997. It is seen from the medical report that some of the injuries were found on the breast of the woman.
During the course of enquiry, the witness No.1 Johon Joseph, witness No.2 Santhanakrishnan, witness No.3 Maria Dass, witness No.4
Sahayarani and witness NO.5 Femina Rose were examined.
The deposition of four male witnesses, viz., John Joseph, Santhanakrishnan, Maria Dass and Gnanakan would give the following facts:
(a) On 4.9.1997 at 5.00 P.M., when John Joseph was sitting in his room at Charismatic Centre reading a book, the respondent Premkumar,
D.S.P. and respondent Panneerselvam, another D.S.P. came with a party of Police Constables and forcibly took him and Santhanakrishnan, Sis.
Femina Rose, Maria Dass and Sis. Sahayarani in the vehicle and took them to the Aaramboly Police Station. The said John Joseph was compelled
to settle the amounts due to the Banks on the same day itself. He said that he had already given undertaking that he would settle the amount in
October. He was compelled to execute deeds settling the properties in favour of the Banks. He said that it would not be possible for him to do so.
They threatened that then they would foist a false case against them. They were taken to Kottar Police Station. There, they were beaten up.
Thereafter, they were taken to Armed Reserve Camp, Maravankudiyiruppu. There, all the five accused were again beaten up. They were
compelled to give a statement that one Gilbert Raj having refused to have intercourse with Sahayarani, was beaten up to death and buried in the
Charismatic Centre itself. Similarly, one Rajesh was brought to the Camp and he was also threatened to give statement that he was compelled by
John Joseph to have intercourse with Sis. Sahayarani and Sis. Femina Rose. When all of them refused to give such statements, Premkumar (R8)
and Panneerselvam (R9) removed the sarees from Femina Rose and Sahayarani and beat them. Thereafter, both Premkumar, D.S.P.(R8) and
Panneerselvam, D.S.P.(R9) tried to remove their blouse. Panneerselvam (R9) with a lathi assaulted on the breast of Sis. Femina Rose. Premkumar
(R8) took another lathi and fisted on the private parts of Sis. Sahayarani. Unable to bear the horrible sight, the other accused agreed to give any
statement as they like. Accordingly, their statements were recorded as dictated.
(b) Thereafter, they were taken back to Charismatic Centre. The Press was asked to come there. They took video in which they were compelled
to give such statements. Thereupon, these detention and torture were continued up to 6.9.1997. In the evening, they were produced before the
Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kuzhithurai for remand. Even at that time, they were threatened not to give the real facts either to the Magistrate or to
others and if the torture at the hands of police is revealed, they would again be subjected to similar treatment and other girls in their family also
would be brought and they would be made nude. Under those circumstances, they did not mention anything before the Magistrate, while the
remand was ordered. Ultimately, they instructed their lawyers to file the writ petitions before this Court seeking for the appropriate reliefs.
On going through the depositions of these witnesses, it is clear that there is a prima facie case to show that they were tortured while in police
custody from 4.9.1997 to 6.9.1997 by R8 and R9.
One important circumstance is that one Anjala Rajan, the wife of Santhana Rajan, witness No.2 gave a telegram on 4.9.1997 to the Chairman,
Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, the Chief Justice of High Court, Madras and Chief Justice of Supreme Court, New Delhi. The certified
copies of the telegrams have been filed after obtaining them from the Telegraph Department. The fact that such telegrams were sent has not been
disputed by the respondent-police officials in the counter. The wordings contained in the telegram are as follows:
The police (Thuckalay A.S.P. and party) arrested six persons with two ladies from Charismatic Centre Service Trust, Marthandam (Fr. John
Joseph, Br. Santhanaraj, Br. Maria Dass, Sr. Sahayamary Jayarani, Sr. Wiselin Femina Rose and Br. Gnanakan) at 5.30 p.m. 4th. But, we did not
know the reason and where they kept them. So, please take action immediately.
This factor as seen from the telegrams coupled with the medical report sent by the Team of Doctors headed by the Dean as directed by this
Court would also clearly show that the respondent-police officials came to Charismatic Centre on 4.9.1997 and took all these persons from the
Centre to the police station and they sustained injuries when they were in custody. The details of the happenings inside several police stations as
given in the deposition of Sahayamary, witness No.4 and Femina Rose, witness No.5 would clearly indicate that their modesty was outraged by
both Premkumar(R8) and Panneerselvam(R9) in the presence of others, that too under the very nose of one Gnanakan, who is the father of
Femina Rose.
The gist of the deposition given by female witnesses, viz., Sahaya Rani and Femina Rose as culled out from chief and cross is as follows:
(A) Sahaya Rani was suffering from a disease. She took treatment through prayers in the Charismatic Centre. After she became alright, she has
been doing service by staying in the Centre for the past three years. Femina Rose also suffered from various diseases. The Doctors who treated
her gave no hopes. Therefore, she was admitted in the Charismatic Centre and she was treated through prayers. Ultimately, she was cured.
Therefore, she used to stay in the Centre and do service.
(B) On 4.9.1997 Thursday at about 5.30 p.m., Panneerselvam, D.S.P. and Premkumar, D.S.P. along with police party and one Joseph Alphones
came to the Charismatic Centre. On being pointed out by him, the police arrested Sahaya Rani, Femina Rose along with John Joseph,
Santhanarajan, Maria Dass and Gnanakan, the father of Femina Rose. They were taken to Aaravaimozhi Police Station. They interrogated John
Joseph. Thereafter, Panneerselvam, D.S.P. asked Sahayarani as to why one Gilbert Raj was killed. He was also asking whether the said Gilbert
Raj was killed since he refused to rape Sahayarani at the compulsion of John Joseph. Sahayarani said that it was not true. He further interrogated
Sahayarani as to whether she had intercourse with John Joseph. She denied the same. Then, they began to beat John Joseph and forcibly took him
out from the room. He was also compelled to give a statement that he killed Gilbert Raj, since he refused to have intercourse with Sahayarani and
Femina Rose. Again, Sahayarani was asked by Panneerselvam, D.S.P. regarding the same facts. Sahayarani emphatically denied stating that she
was never compelled to have intercourse and Gilbert Raj was never murdered. At that time, Panneerselvam, D.S.P. beat Sahayarani. She fell
down on the ground. Thereafter, Panneerselvam, D.S.P. and other Constables beat on her left thigh, right thigh and buttocks. Similarly,
Santhanaraj and Maria John were also beaten up.
(C) Next day at 11.00 a.m., all these people were taken to Maravankudiyiruppu Armed Reserve Police Camp. Again interrogation continued.
Then, D.S.P. Premkumar asked Sahayarani as to whether John Joseph raped her and murdered Gilbert Raj. She said that such a thing had not
taken place. Then, John Joseph was first beaten up. He denied the rape and murder. At that time, Premkumar, D.S.P. came near to Sahayarani
and removed her saree and petticoat and threw them at the corner of the room. Then, he also tore the blouse and pulled her breasts. Premkumar,
D.S.P. took lathi and fisted on her stomach as well as on her private parts. At that time, Panneerselvam, D.S.P. similarly removed the saree of
Femina Rose. After tearing the blouse, he pulled her breasts and fisted on the chest with lathi. John Joseph and Gnankan, the father of Femina
Rose prostrated before Premkumar. D.S.P. and Panneerselvam, D.S.P. requesting not to outrage the modesty of the ladies. They also said that
they would give any statement as they dictated. Thereafter, their statements were recorded. Then, they were compelled to give the said statement
to the Press. Video also was taken by the Press Reporters.
On going through the depositions of the witnesses, it is noticed that the deposition of women, namely witness No.4 Sahayarani and witness
No.5 Femina Rose, who were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, are more natural and quite impressive. As indicated above, even though the
Team of Doctors examined them long after the occurrence, as directed by this Court, they were able to see the injuries on the bodies of the
witnesses. In the complaint given by the wife of one John Alphones registered in Crime No.917/97, the main accusation was made against John
Joseph and not against witness No.4 Sahayarani and witness No.5 Femina Rose. Even then, they were also taken to police station. In such a
situation, there is no necessity for these witnesses who were actually found with injuries, for implicating the police officers, who are in higher rank,
namely Deputy Superintendents of Police.
As a matter of fact, they did not choose to make any allegation against the Superintendent of Police, though the investigation was conducted
under his supervision. In fact, these witnesses would state that they were compelled to give such statement to the Superintendent of Police as well
as to the Press Reporters.
In the said circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that there is no prima facie case to
hold that the petitioner and others were detained in illegal custody from 4.9.1997 onwards and they were inhumanly ill-treated and modesty of the
ladies was outraged in a most cruel manner.
As noted above, the deposition of the witness Nos.1 to 6 would clearly indicate that the police officers went to the Charismatic Centre on
4.9.1997 at 5.00 P.M. and forcibly took them to Aramboly Police Station and then to Kottar Police Station and from there, they were taken to
Armed Reserve Camp and they were severely beaten up and modesty of the ladies was outraged. Even though this Court gave opportunity to the
defence to examine their witnesses to establish the defence, the police officials did not get into the witness box to substantiate their defence that the
accused were not arrested on 4.9.1997 but arrested only on 5.9.1997 and they were not beaten and no injuries were caused while they were in
custody.
When the similar facts have been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Arvinder Singh Bagga Vs. State of U.P. and Others, regarding the illegal
arrest and torture and fabrication of records, the Supreme Court ordered enquiry through Principal District Judge and on receipt of the report, it
directed the State Government to launch prosecution against all the police officers involved in such a thing. The relevant observation is as follows:
We have carefully perused the report. We are appreciative of the good work done by the learned District Judge. He had held a thorough inquiry
by examining several witnesses to arrive at the truth. In our considered opinion the report is a fair one and deserves to be accepted. It is
accordingly accepted.
On a perusal of all the above, we are really pained to note that such things should happen in a country which is still governed by the rule of law.
We cannot but express our strong displeasure and disapproval of the conduct of the concerned police officers. Therefore, we issue the following
directions:
The State of Uttar Pradesh will take immediate steps to launch prosecution against all the police officers involved in this sordid affair.
2...
Similarly, when a Lecturer of a College was forcibly abducted by a Revenue Divisional Officer and tortured in his office with the help of the
police officials, this Court in K.V. RAJEDNRAN v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THARANGAMPADI POLICE STATION, PORAYAR,
ETC. AND OTHERS 2001 (2) L.W.(Cri.) 545 on the strength of the observation made by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others
Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, directed the Special Branch C.I.D. to register F.I.R. against the said R.D.O. for various offences regarding the
torture and illegal custody and file a final report in the Court concerned.
It is clear from the observation made by this Court as well as the Supreme Court that if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits
and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty of a citizen, then
the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved shall consider the nature and extent of the breach of the police officer concerned and pass
appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizen to the mercy of police echelons, since human dignity is a dear value of our
Constitution.
If this sort of inhuman and ill-treatment in the name of interrogation by the police officers, that too at the D.S.P. level is allowed to go on, then
there is no protection even to the persons who are innocent. When these atrocities were brought to the notice of this Court, certainly the powers of
this Court have got to be exercised to give appropriate orders so that the members of the Law Enforcing Agency will know their limit. The people
also would feel and hope that they would be protected as per the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by arms of law through the appropriate
orders passed by this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The role played by the police officers in this case would make this Court to think that these officials have behaved like barbarians without
giving any respect to the human dignity, that too with the ladies Sahaya Rani and Femina Rose who are regarded as sisters. As a matter of fact,
these people were compelled to give statements to Press persons who took video. This Court earlier dealt with the bail application by some of the
accused in this case and had an occasion to see the said video in order to show whether those statements were obtained by threat or coercion. On
seeing the Video, this Court was unable to come to the conclusion that there was any threat since only some of the portions of the statements were
shown to this Court. This Court is unable to understand as to why the Press Reporters were allowed to take Video. Admittedly, the Video was
not taken by the Law Enforcing Agency. Strangely, the Superintendent of Police has filed an affidavit before this Court in this writ petition stating
that the Video was taken by the Press Persons in spite of the objection raised by the police. This statement of Superintendent of Police cannot be
true. When the objection was raised by the police, how the Press Reporters could record statement of these injured persons through Video? In the
bail application, this Court was requested by the Public Prosecutor to witness the Video. If such an objection was raised by the police, there was
no necessity to keep that Video with them. These are all would show that the police agency wanted to mislead the Court by giving the false
particulars by showing the Video. It is to be further stated that when the bail application was dealt with by this Court, the deposition given by the
witness Nos.1 to 10 both in chief and cross were not available.
Under those circumstances, the earlier observation made by this Court in the bail application would not stand in the way of this Court to give a
finding with regard to the illegal custody and inhuman torture which the five persons were subjected to.
In view of the above discussion, it would be appropriate to direct the first respondent, namely State of Tamil Nadu to launch prosecution
through C.B.C.I.D. against Premkumar, former D.S.P., Special Branch, Nagercoil and Panneerselvam, former D.S.P. of Nagercoil Town, who
were involved in the offences relating to the illegal custody of the injured persons and torture committed on them, especially on women, viz.,
witness No.4 Sahayarani and witness No.5 Femina Rose. On passing suitable orders by the State Government in pursuance of this order, the
C.B.C.I.D. shall record the statement of Femina Rose who is one of the injured and register F.I.R. against Premkumar and Panneerselvam, the
D.S. Ps. for the appropriate offences and after recording the statements of the other injured persons and other witnesses who were examined
before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli and the statements of all the Doctors concerned and any other witnesses to be produced and after
collecting other materials, if any, launch prosecution against the two named police officials before the appropriate Court.
The C.B.C.I.D. is directed to comply with the order of this Court and file the final report in the light of the deposition given by the witnesses 1
to 10 before the Principal District Judge and other witnesses for the appropriate offences against the police officials concerned within three months
from the date of receipt of this order. On entertaining the said final report launching prosecution against the police officials concerned, the Court
concerned would go on with the proceedings in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.
In the meantime, the Sessions Court in S.C.No.25 of 1998 may frame appropriate charges against the accused concerned and go on with the
trial. Since the prosecution, which is to be launched against the police officers with reference to the torture on the accused in S.C.No.25 of 1998,
is in relation to some other transaction, there is no bar for the trial Court to go on with the trial in S.C.No.25 of 1998 and finish the same as
expeditiously as possible.
To sum up:
(i)The first respondent, namely, the State of Tamil Nadu is directed to launch prosecution through C.B.C.I.D. against Premkumar, former D.S.P.,
Special Branch, Nagercoil and Panneerselvam, former D.S.P. of Nagercoil Town, who were involved in the offences relating to the illegal custody
of the injured persons and torture committed on them, especially on women, viz., witness No.4 Sahaya Rani and witness No.5 Femina Rose.
(ii) On passing suitable orders by the State Government, the C.B.C.I.D. shall record the statement of the injured Femina Rose and register F.I.R.
against Premkumar and Panneerselvam, the D.S. Ps. for the appropriate offences and shall record the statements of the other injured persons and
other witnesses examined before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, the Team of Doctors and any other witnesses to be produced and collect
other materials, if any, and launch prosecution against the two named police officials by filing the final report before the appropriate Court within
three months from the date of receipt of this order. On entertaining the said final report launching prosecution against the police officials concerned,
the Court concerned would go on with the proceedings in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.
(iii) The observations in this order would not affect the merits of the prosecution in S.C.No.25 of 1998. The trial Court can go on with the trial
uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. Since the offences in S.C.No.25 of 1998 would relate to different
transaction, the trial Court need not wait till the prosecution is launched against R8 and R9, the police officials and go on with the trial in
S.C.No.25 of 1998 and finish the same as expeditiously as possible.
With the above directions, W.P.No.15596 of 1997 is disposed of. Consequently, no separate order is necessary in W.P.No.18995 of 1997.
As stated above, W.P.Nos.15595 of 1997 and 1569, 1570, 4283 of 1998 are dismissed and W.P.No.1285 of 1998 is allowed. All the
connected W.M. Ps. are closed.