MAHESWARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another incident of custodial violence. The petitioner a widow has approached this Court in the year 2014 for a writ of mandamus seeking compensation for the death of her husband Easkki Muthu and also for an appropriate action as against the officials, who are responsible for the cause of the death.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that her husband Esakki Muthu was taken to the Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai by the police officials on 13/7/2014 under the guise of an enquiry, where he was beaten brutally and he suffered serious injuries. Therefore in order to escape from the consequences, a case was foisted as against her husband for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and he was also remanded to judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai on 15/7/2014 at 9.00 pm. On 21/7/2014 her husband died in the prison. The petitioner claims that she had visited her husband in the prison on the date of the incident. During her visit she found that her husband was having multiple injuries and he was not in a position to stand even for three minutes continuously. Considering the cause of death due to multiple injuries, the Superintendent of Prison, Dindigul, lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Dindigul and the same has been registered in Crime No.225 of 2014 on 21/7/2014 under Sec. 174 CrPC. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is having four children and her husband was the only bread winner of the family. The petitioner having no other scope has approached this Court seeking compensation and appropriate action as against the concerned officials, who are responsible for the death of her husband.

(3.) This Court has entertained this writ petition and ordered notice in the year 2015. However, thereafter, the matter was listed only in the month of March 2023. The respondents, who received notice, did not enter appearance. The same was recorded in the order dtd. 14/3/2023. Only thereafter the respondents filed the counter.