(IN THE MATTER OF RAJAKANNU, HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN) R. PARVATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, MADRAS-600 009,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R . Parvathy, wife of Rajakannu has moved this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has sought for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the production of the body of Rajakannu and for compensation as a consequence of the alleged detention, injuries and disappearance of Rajakannu at the hands of the respondents herein and others as well as for the misbehavior of the respondents with the petitioner and others.

(2.) PETITIONER and her husband Rajakannu were daily -wage agricultural labourers having four children, Mariappan, aged 25 years, Ravi aged 13 years, Selvam aged 7 years and Chinnaponnu, aged 10 years. On 20th March 1993, the petitioner has alleged that her husband Rajakannu left the house at about 6 A.M. in search of work. At about 12 noon on the said date, the fourth respondent, by name Anthonisami, Sub Inspector of Police, Kammapuram Police Station, Vridhachalam Taluk in South Arcot District, and others, came along with five policemen to the petitioner's village. One of the companion constables was Veeraswami. The fourth respondent and others took the petitioner, her two sons Mariappan and Ravi and her brother -in -law Ratnam, aged 55 years, in the van in which they had come and which belonged to a tourist operator with Registration No.TAF -1269, to the police Station located at a distance of about 20k.m. from their village. She has narrated thereafter in her affidavit that she was left in one place and the other three were taken to the other room and, "without any provocation, the fourth respondent started beating me with a cane all over my body. Afterwards, at several places I had swelling. After finishing beating me up, the fourth respondent went and beat my two sons and my brother -in -law Ratnam. Around 11.00 p.m. the fourth respondent left the place." She was given some food by the writer of the police station around 10 p.m. and she slept in the station itself in the night. Her husband, who came to know about her and her sons and brother -in -law having been taken into custody by the police, came to the police station around 12 noon on 213.1993. The police then detained the petitioner's husband and let the petitioner, her sons and her brother -in -law go.

(3.) PETITIONER has thereafter narrated how she went in search of her husband to the police station, how she made desperate enquiries from any and every person concerned with her husband's detention at the police station and how finally when her efforts failed, she also desperately sent telegrams to the Chief Minister of the State and the Chief Justice of this Court. In the petition she has alleged, "I have reasons to believe that the fourth respondent and his subordinates have killed my husband and have also secretly disposed of his body. Now, in order to escape from criminal action they have trotted out a story that my husband had escaped from the police custody on 22.3.1993. In order to further buttress their story, I understand a case of man -missing was also registered by them and false statements are prepared in the name of several persons".