PADMINI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein who has described herself as a domestic servant and her deceased husband as a construction worker, has filed a writ petition, W.P. No. 9195 of 1992 alleging that on 30-5-1992, she and her husband were woken up by the police at about 3.00 a.m. in the night, while they were in a hut near the Dental College at Annamalai Nagar in the District of South Arcot. One of the policemen told her husband to come to the police station. She wanted to know the reason, why policemen took her husband to the Police Station and was told that her husband was wanted for interrogation in connection with a case of theft. In the morning on 30th around 6.00 a.m., she went to her mother-in-law's place, told her about the arrest of her husband and then went with coffee for her husband to the Police Station. An orderly took the coffee for her husband and returned the empty tumbler. He asked her to bring idly for her husband and when she enquired about her husband, she was informed that he (her husband) had been beaten in the night and that he knew nothing else and that she should bring idles for her husband. In the narration of the events a policeman was identified by her as 'Bhai' and some others either as an elderly policeman, or chokidar or as sweeper at the police station, but incidents thereafter narrated by her disclose as follows :

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has insisted upon for compensation being allowed to the petitioner in view of the fact that the investigating officer has formed an opinion about a prima facie case being made out regarding the petitioner being ravished. The argument has force. This is a case of its own type where not only the allegation is regarding a person losing life while in custody, but also the wife of that man being ravished and thus losing her respect in the society. Learned Government Pleader realising the position wants three more weeks' time to find out if anything can be done without any direction from the Court in that regard. This point shall also be decided on the next hearing. Put up on 18-11-1992." The Government Notification appointing a commission of inquiry about which a mention is made in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 9195 of 1992 also, however, has been separately impugned in W.P. No. 10924 of 1992, the challenge being on the ground that the appointment of the commission by the Government vide G.O.Ms. 666, Public Department (Law and Order) dated 17-6-92 was not bona fide and several reasons are stated for the same. A learned single Judge of this Court, however, dismissed the petition holding that the order of appointment. of commission by the Government preceded the order of this Court directing the investigation of the alleged offence and thus,

(3.) We are, however, informed at the Bar by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that after cognizance of the offence by the learned Magistrate, the stage has reached for supply to the accused of copy of Police report and other documents. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has already made a copy of the police report available to the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has already been permitted inspection of all the materials including the case diary. We find from the order of the learned Magistrate that he has noted that the case reported by the Police is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The case now after supply of copy of Police report and other documents to the accused, shall be posted for order of commitment under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The scheme of the law as envisaged in these provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that the Committing Magistrate has no power to discharge the accused at this stage, nor has he power to take oral evidence where a specific provision like Section 306 enjoins. It is also not open to the Magistrate at this stage to launch on a process of satisfying himself that a prima facie case has been made out on the merit. In Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 514 : (1978 Cri LJ 642), it is stated that at page 643 (of Cri LJ) :-