PATHUMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the petitioner in I. O. P. 20/92 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Muvattupuzha. The appellant is the petitioner in I. O. P. 20/92. She filed I. O. P. for recover of a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- with interest as compensation for the loss of her son. Since she was not able to pay the court fee, she prayed for permission to file the suit as an indigent person. The averments in the petition is as follows:- The petitioner is a resident of Thankala Kara, Thrikariyoor Village . Her son Ansari was aged about 19. On 7. 8. 91 he was taken into custody without any reason or justification by defendants 2 to 7 who are the Sub Inspector of Police and the police Constables of Pothanicad Police Station. The defendants 2 to 7 kept the aforesaid Ansari in illegal restraint. They tortured him in different manner by using various means, manhandled and belaboured him in cruel and inhuman manner. As a result of that the said Ansari breathed his last while in the illegal custody of defendants 2 to 7. According to petitioner, after the cold-blooded murder of the petitioner's son, the defendants 2 to 7 conspired together and hanged the dead body of Ansari in the police station with the object of making it that he had committed suicide. The real cause of death of Ansari was the torture by defendants 2 to 7. It is stated that by misusing their official position and taking advantage of their presence in and proximity to the kothamangalam Police Station, defendants 2 to 7 got the case registered in relation to the incident of the murder of Ansari as unnatural death by hanging. It is further stated that defendants 2 to 7 were suspended. The charges included the alteration of the records also. The death of her son in police custody has caused great hardship to the petitioner. It is further stated that it is not clearly in the normal official functions of respondents 2 to 7 to belabour anybody brought to the police station or to torture a citizen of india. Hence the petition is filed.

(2.) TO this petition an objections are filed by the second respondent and respondents 3 to 7. The first respondent State of Kerala did not file any objection.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in S. R Vaithianathan v. K. Shanmuganathan, AIR 1994 SC 1771, Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Smt. Gurmej Kaur & Ann, AIR 1988 SC 257.