ABDUL ASEES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for compensation is the appellant. Alleging that he was brutally beaten up by the police at about 10 a.m. on 09/01/1985 inside the campus of the High School, where the plaintiff was then studying in the 10th standard, the suit for compensation was laid on the ground that the plaintiff suffered serious injuries and was hospitalised for nearly a month and thereafter, continued further treatment. He had also undergone a surgery for the injury to a portion of his head.

(2.) While the plaintiff alleged that the police had entered the campus of the school and lathi charged the students, the defence version, as contained in the written statement filed by the State of Kerala and the Commissioner of Police is that the incident did not take place as alleged and but that, pursuant to a First Information Statement recorded from the plaintiff's uncle, an investigation was held in Crime No. 6/85 of Chevayur Police Station, in which it was revealed that at about 11.30 a.m. on 09/01/1985, about 300 students of the plaintiff's school caused obstruction on the road and deflated the tyres of vehicles and the Police tried to scare them away and the students dispersed for the time being, though, they later stopped a bus KRD 2471 and tried to deflate its tyres, which led the Sub Inspector of Police and other Policemen to run upto the bus, following which the plaintiff and other students ran away from that scene of occurrence and the plaintiff fell on the road and rolled down and in that process, sustained injuries. The written statement stands to refute that the injuries were caused due to any force used by the Police.

(3.) The plaintiff gave evidence as PW 1. PW 2 is one, who was a student of the said school, at the relevant point of time. He stated of having seen the plaintiff, being assaulted by the police, by poking a lathi into his belly and on his back, in the school compound and that the plaintiff was hit on his head, when he fell down. The said witness said that he and others ran away and the teachers took the plaintiff to hospital. He said that there were 8 to 10 policemen, who were involved in the assault, though he would not be able to identify anyone, as he could not see their faces properly. He refuted the defence suggestion in cross - examination that he was tendering evidence supporting the plaintiff's case, owing to personal affinity towards him.