HAKKIM BATHERI Vs. O.K. KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POLICE excesses, which is the bane of civilized society, from its very inception, is the cause of action for the suit for damages filed by the two public-spirited persons who were politically active and were admittedly prominent members of a political party. The 1st revision petitioner herein is the 1st defendant, the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Thaliparamba and the 2nd revision petitioner is the 4th defendant, who was a Head Constable with the Armed Reserve Police. The 2nd and 3rd defendants, who were police officers, alleged to be involved in the incident have not chosen to challenge the appellate orders.

(2.) THE incident in which the plaintiffs in the respective suits claimed to have suffered mental agony and pain as also loss of face happened on 9.12.1991. Admittedly, on the said day there was a 'Bandh' declared. The situation in the northern districts of the State, allegedly was tense and there were also incidents of communal riots. The local police was deployed with the assistance of the Armed Reserve Police for maintaining law and order. The 1st respondent herein, the plaintiff in O.S 406/1994, is a practicing advocate, who was then, also an elected Panchayat Member. Hearing about some untoward incidents happening within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Ward, represented by him, he was proceeding to the spot when he met the plaintiff in O.S.No.407/1994. The plaintiff in O.S No.407/1994 was a prominent leader of a political party to which the plaintiff herein also owed allegiance. Incidentally, it was their party which had called for the 'bandh'.

(3.) THE 1st appellant/the 1st defendant contended in his written statement that at Ramanthali, where the alleged cause of action occurred, the situation was very tense due to communal clashes. The DySP claimed that the plaintiffs in both the suits were instigating and abetting culprits and was attempting to intervene in the clashes. It was specifically pleaded that the arrest of the plaintiffs by the 2nd defendant was due to the activities of the plaintiffs in instigating and abetting the commission of offence. The allegations of abuse, physical assault etc.,were also denied. The 2nd defendant separately and the defendants 3 and 4 together filed a written statement, in tandem, with the contentions raised by the first defendant. All the defendants claimed protection under Section 64 of the Kerala Police Act, 1960.