S SIVAGAMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of one Sekar who was killed in the police firing on 12-7-93 at about 7.15 p.m. within the limits of Mecheri Police Station. According to the petitioner, her husband the deceased Sekar was a tailor having a tailor shop near the police station in Dharmapuri Main Road, Mecheri, Mettur Taluk, Salem District and was earning around Rs. 3,000/- per month. He was the only bread winner of the family consisting of the petitioner, her mother-in-law and two children. The husband of the petitioner was killed by indiscriminate firing by the police and, therefore, she has approached this Court for a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 3 lakhs towards compensation for the death of her husband.

(2.) The said claim of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents on the ground that on 12-7-93 at about 1.30 p.m. one person by name Kannan was murdered. One Allimuthu was suspected to be the accused for the said murder. Demanding the arrest of the said Allimuthu, a group of persons about 1000 in number assembled in front of the Mecheri Police Station on 12-7-93 at about 5.30 p.m. with cycle chain, crow bar, sticks and bricks in their hands and shouted slogans against the police and conducted dharna to arrest the said Allimuthu. The group was pacified by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mettur and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur and other revenue officials and the crowd was assured that the said Allimuthu will be arrested. Not satisfied with such assurance, the crowd numbering about 2000 continued their unlawful activities till 7.30 p.m. and blocked the entire traffic on the main trunk road between Bhavani Town and Dharmapuri Town and the entire traffic was paralysed. The attempts made by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Police to pacify the crowd proved futile and the mob started attacking the police personnel and caused damage to the public property in the police station and also in fact made an attempt to damage the jeep belonging to the police department. In view of the lesser number of police personnel available in the police station, the mob was warned and even then the mob did not stop the violent activities and started throwing soda bottles and damaged the motor bike belonging to one of the police officer. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer ordered police firing. The husband of the petitioner was one of the members of the unlawful assembly and was killed in the police firing. The said firing was ordered only to save the lives of police personnel and the revenue authorities including the Revenue Divisional Officer from the hands of the unlawful gathering and by way of self-defence. Hence, the respondents defended the police firing and contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the compensation as claimed in the writ petition.

(3.) Mr. V. Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police firing was indiscriminate without even proper warning and following the procedures before firing is ordered. In fact, before firing there was no lathi charge and not even a warning to the crowd was given. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that based upon the judgment of Delhi High Court reported in 1992 Cri LJ 128 (P. V. Kapoor v. Union of India) the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for.