P.AMARAVATHI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs only) as compensation excluding Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) already sanctioned as per the order passed in earlier W.P.No.7925 of 1995.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that she is the widow of late Pandian who died in Police custody. There are three daughters and one son for them, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said Pandian was detained by the Police on 05.04.1995. It is averred by the petitioner that her husband has not committed any offence, much less the one alleged against him and as the death had occurred in the custody, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. By the earlier order passed by this Court on 14.08.1996 in W.P.No.7925 of 1995, a sum of Rs.1 lakh was directed by this Court to be paid by the respondents as interim compensation, which was paid and the said amount of Rs.1 lakh was directed by this Court to be adjusted when regular compensation is claimed. This Court, in the said Writ Petition, further directed that out of the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was directed to be paid immediately within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and the balance sum of Rs.75,000/- was directed to be invested in a Nationalised Bank in Gudalur, permitting the petitioner to draw the monthly interest directly from the Bank and the said deposit of Rs.75,000/- was directed to be made within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.

(3.) According to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, the said Pandian is a hard-core criminal and that the allegation that there was custodial death is denied. The pleading of the petitioner that there was custodial death, is without any iota of evidence. Though the deceased Pandian was arrested on 05.04.1995, as he died in Police custody, the Sub-Collector, Periakulam submitted a report with recommendation to the Collector, Madurai, stating that it is a case of custodial death and that the Inspector of Police Mr.Pandia Raja and Sub-Inspector of Police Mr.J.Rajendran were responsible for causing the death of the deceased Pandian while in Police custody. The Collector, Madurai, recommended for criminal action to be initiated against the erred Police personnel and the Sub-Collector, Periakulam filed the charge sheet against the said Police personnel and the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Additional Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Periakulam tried the matter in S.C.No.478 of 1999, which ended in conviction on 16.06.2003, in which, the said J.Rajendran was convicted for the offences under Sections 330 and 302 IPC and respectively sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonsment and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further three years rigorous imprisonment and the sentences imposed on his were ordered to run concurrently. Pending trial in the said S.C.No.478 of 1999, the said Pandia Raja died. It is further stated that the said Rajendran was dismissed from service. On appeal to this Court (Madurai Bench) in Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.946 of 2003, by judgment dated 16.02.2008, the said Rajendran was acquitted of the charges and the said Criminal Appeal was allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.