A. RAJESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the dismissal of Crl. M. P. 1176/2011 dated 16. 3. 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam.

(2.) Revision petitioner is the complainant in the private complaint filed against respondents 2 to 6 the Sub Inspector of police and other police constables and Asst Sub Inspector of Police of Vadakkekkad Police Station of Chavakkad Taluk. The case of the revision petitioner is that he has been illegally detained and tortured with third degree methods by respondents 2 to 6 after falsely implicating him as accused in crime No. 119/2009. According to him, on 26. 7. 2010 at 12 noon, while he was standing at Guruvayoor railway station, two police men took him to Guruvayoor police station and after keeping him there for some time, Vadakkekkad police was intimated. The second respondent herein along with other police men came in a jeep and he was taken to Vadakkekkad police station. Thereafter he was tortured brutally by the respondents on 26. 7. 2010 and 27. 7. 2010. It is also his allegation that his uncle had filed a complaint alleging commission of offence under Sec. 420 IPC which has been registered as crime No. 119/2008 in which there is no allegation against him. In spite of that, he has been implicated as an accused and subjected to custodial torture. He would also allege that the torture was made directing him to withdraw the case, C. C. 590/2010, filed by his mother Parameswari Amma before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kunnamkulam. His mother has also filed a complaint in connection with the same to the Chief Minister, Home Minister and Director General of Police against the second respondent and others and that is also a reason for enimity to the respondents towards him. Even though he was taken from Guruvayoor police station at 12 noon on 26. 7. 2010, his family members were not intimated and his arrest was also not recorded. After the intimation of his illegal confinement, his mother and sister came to the police station on 27. 7. 2010 at noon but respondents 2 to 6 denied the factum regarding the taking in custody of the petitioner initially and on their subsequent queries it was admitted but he was not permitted to talk to them. On 28. 7. 2010 mother filed Crl. M. P. 6312/2010 in which an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner inspected the police station. Thereafter, during night on that day, he was produced at the residence of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has recorded his statements. As per the direction of the Magistrate, he was taken from Chavakkad sub jail to Taluk hospital on 28. 7. 2010 during night itself and though the doctor stated that he has to be admitted and treated, the policemen were not willing for the same. Thereafter on the immediate next day he was released on bail and undergone treatment at Royal hospital. Even though police was intimated, nobody turned up. Only after his mother filed Crl. M. P. 6312/2010 his arrest was recorded falsely on 28. 7. 2010 at 11 am. So the act of the accused amounts to offence under Secs 166, 211, 220, 294B, 323, 324, 341, 357, 506(1) read with Sec. 149 IPC . It is also alleged that he had filed W. P. (C). 2877/2010 before the High Court seeking for damages for the illegal acts of respondents 2 to 6 in which he has been directed to resort to appropriate remedy for his redressal and accordingly the complaint has been filed. Though statements of the revision petitioner and two witnesses were taken, the court below by the impugned order dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner came up before this Court.

(3.) Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and the counsel for respondents 2 to 6. Public Prosecutor was also heard on behalf of the first respondent. Perused the records.