SAMATA VEDIKE AND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are complaining about the police excesses in the case on hand. The first petitioner is an organisation and the second petitioner is an aggrieved person. The second petitioner is claiming compensation in the case on hand.

(2.) IT is stated in the petition that the second petitioner was working as a maidservant in the house of the third respondent. She was taken to police station by a man police constable on 4-5-1992 at about 10 a. m. for interrogation. She was not told the nature of complaint. She was not allowed to contact her husband. She was accused in vulgar language and asked to state as to what did she lift from the house of the third respondent. She was taken to Devaraj Police Station. She was made to sit alone in the upstairs of the police station till 7 p. m. Thereafter she was subjected to intense questioning by the police. Thereafter she came to know that the third respondent has lodged a false police complaint against the petitioner in the matter of theft of Rs. 60,000/- and some gold jewels. Her innocence was not accepted. She was tortured by pressing her fingernail. She was threatened of stripping naked and gang rape by the police. No woman police was kept with her. Apprehending gang rape, she urinated and requested the police to allow her to go to toilet. Apprehending police torture and gang rape she jumped from the second floor of the police station building and was grievously injured. She was admitted by the Police in K. R. Hospital with serious injuries and fractures. She was in-patient from 4-6-1993 to 6-6-1993. She was again admitted to hospital from 2-11-1993 to 17-11-1993. She was earning about Rs. 1,400/- p. m. from working as a maidservant. Her case was taken up before the Commissioner of Police, Mysore, and Lokyukta. The National Human Rights Commission was also approached by the petitioner. With these facts petitioner is complaining about the various provisions of law including Article 21. She is seeking for compensation on the facts of this case.

(3.) NOTICE was issued to the respondents. They have entered appearance and have filed their statement of objections. They say in the objection statement that on 4-5-1993 one Vijaya Kumar lodged a complaint with the Sarawathipuram Police Station, stating that he suspected the hand of his maid servant Smt. Nanjamma (petitioner No. 2) in the matter of theft of Mangalasutra and other jewels and cash in all amounting to Rs. 55,000/- and requested to take necessary action to recover the same. A case was registered and the CPI "c" Division took up investigation of the case. The Circle Inspector secured Smt. Nanjamma through WHC 88 CJ Kantha and other staff member and she was questioned. At about 7. 30 P. M. Sri Ramakrishna, reporter of "mahanandi" came to the office of the CPI to collect the details of the news items regarding Veerappan. Smt. Nanjamma was asked to sit outside the room. After the press reporter left the CPI's Office, the CPI was attending the routine work in his office room. In the meanwhile, Smt. Nanjamma had gone to toilet and thereafter she jumped out of the police station building. She was immediately shifted to the hospital. The DCP (Crime and Traffic) Mysore, was asked to conduct a preliminary enquiry and to submit his report. It is stated that on 26-5-1993 the DCP (Crime and Traffic) submitted his report stating that there has been some negligence on the part of the police staff of the Devaraja Police Station. Based on this report an enquiry was ordered against the erring officials. They also refer to the enquiry proceedings. They deny the allegations.