VIBIN P.V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Mr. P.V.Vipin, a young lawyer aged 25, practising at Cochin who hails from a poor family of a backward community is the petitioner in this writ petition. On 14th April 2012 while the petitioner was returning home riding his motor cycle, after watching a 2nd show film, the police squad on patrol duty of Njarackal Police Station consisted of the respondents 5 to 7 intercepted the vehicle and cane charged him brutally. In the said assault, the petitioner has lost five teeth. The 5th respondent who is working as Home Guard has no authority under law to manhandle the petitioner. The assault committed by the respondents 5, 6 and 7 is nothing but a brutal attack upon an innocent lawyer. He was hospitalised and further referred to Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences for expert treatment. Ext.P1 is the paper report with photograph of the petitioner describing the incident published in Deccan Chronicle dated 16/04/2012. Ext.P2 is the photograph showing profuse bleeding from the teeth socket of the upper jaw of the petitioner and blood splashed on the motor bike. The action of the police is an infringement of the right to life of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By the police action, the petitioner's right to carry out profession guaranteed under Section 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India also is infringed. The petitioner has done nothing as against any law or Rule. The interception of the police was deliberate, wilful with a malicious intention to inflict injury on the petitioner. The above act of the respondents 5 to 7 causing injury is an infringement upon human rights also. Since the culprits are police officers, the possibility to bring the offenders before law is remote and interference of this Court is warranted. Hence filed this writ petition. Though several reliefs are sought for, arguments advanced at the bar were mainly focused on the relief seeking a direction to the 1st,4th,5th,6th and 7th respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the loss of his teeth, and to give 50,000.00 to the petitioner as interim relief for hospital expenses. Respondents' plea:

(2.) THE 1st and 3rd respondents filed counter affidavits separately denying the cause of injury and taking a common contention regarding the cause of injury and departmental disciplinary actions taken against the respondents 5 to 7. As a routine affair on 14/4/2012 at night, the 5th respondent was checking vehicles with the assistance of the 6th and 7th respondents at Vypin-Munambam Highway in front of the Njarakkal police station. While so at about 11.40 p.m., the petitioner who was riding a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KL 42 E 3458 from north to south direction was directed to stop his vehicle by the 5th respondent. But the petitioner did not obey the signal and drove away his vehicle. The 7th respondent, who was standing 80 metres away from the scene, tried to stop the motor vehicle by stretching and waving his lathi, which resulted in grievous hurt and losing of five teeth. After that, the petitioner was admitted into hospital for treatment and F.I.R. was recorded. Based on the F.I.R., Crime No.644/2012 was registered under Sections 324, 326,307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Njarakkal police against the respondents 5 to 7. The investigation has been taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police and the same is progressing. On the basis of the investigation, the 7th respondent was arrested on 17/4/2012 and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kochi and he was remanded to judicial custody. The Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam has passed an order to conduct an enquiry and pursuant to the same, on the basis of the report of the District Police Chief, Ernakulam, departmental action has been initiated for major penalty against the Sub Inspector of Police, Njarakkal and the Senior Civil Police Officer for the alleged lapses in connection with the vehicle checking duty. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perumbavoor has been authorised to conduct an enquiry. The case is under investigation in a proper and fair manner. On the basis of the investigation, further action will be taken against the respondents 5 to 7 in accordance with law. In addition to the above contention, the 3rd respondent contended that 'home guards' are not permanent employees of the Government. Since the 7th respondent is a home guard only, Government is not having any vicarious liability for the untoward incident anything happened due to his action.

(3.) THE petitioner filed reply affidavits separately against the counter affidavits filed by the respondents 5 to 7 and denied the cause of injury alleged by the respondents in their counter affidavits. Submissions at the Bar