JAYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 01.076.2006 made in M.P.No.1 of 2006 in W.P.No.24160 of 2006, dismissing the above said petition, the petitioner has preferred the above writ appeal.

(2.) THE Writ Petition No.24160 of 2006, is filed for Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 8 to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner for the death of her brother and also to direct the second respondent, viz., the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against respondents 3 to 8.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, the third respondent has chosen to state that in respect of the complaint regarding theft of jewels, the Sub-INspector of Police has secured one Saranraj and Pandian on 04.05.2006 under suspicious circumstances and after interrogation, they have admitted the guilt and the goods were also recovered. It is the case of the third respondent that the said Pandian was arrested on 04.05.2006 and it was informed to the mother of the said Pandian. The third respondent has also stated in the line of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent about the incident which took place on 12.06.2006 stating that on 12.06.2006, at about 8.30 AM at S.M. Road, the said Pandian has procured kerosene and a match box from the shop of one Ramalingam and poured kerosene upon himself as he approached the Corporation School compound and set himself fire and with 35% burn injuries he was admitted in Kilpauk Government Medical College Hospital by his sister. 5 (a). It is also the case of the third respondent that the petitioner has informed for the first time that her brother was a eunuch and he has informed her that he was teased by the police personnel while in remand and apprehending that he may be sent to jail again, he poured kerosene and set himself on fire. According to the third respondent, neither the deceased has complained of offence of sodomy, nor the post mortem certificate discloses any such injuries on person. It is the case of the third respondent that there was no reason for custodial interrogation to subject the said Pandian for any sexual violation on his person. According to the third respondent, the said Pandian himself did not say anything about sexual harassment while he was giving statement before the Ward Doctor in Kilpauk Government Medical College Hospital when he was admitted on 12.06.2006. 5 (b). It is also the case of the third respondent that Pandian has not stated anything about the alleged sexual harassment in the dying declaration, which was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 13.06.2006. It is also the case of the third respondent that the Police Station is on the main road easily accessible to the public. It also stated that Tmt. Asha Bharathi, President of Tamil Nadu Aravanigal Sangam wanted to have a demonstration against the police, and the same was dropped after knowing that there was no substance in the allegation. It was one Noori, President, South INdia Positive Net Work, who has motivated the idea of proceeding against the police.