MYKALA SABAMMA Vs. S SRINIVAS RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent namely, the Superintendent of Police, Mahbubnagar, to register a criminal case under Sections 343 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), to investigate the said offence by the Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department (CB CID) and initiate disciplinary action against the first respondent and other policemen who are responsible for allegedly causing the death of her husband. She also prayed this Court to award appropriate compensation to the family of the deceased and pass such other orders as are deemed fit.

(2.) The petitioner is the wife of one Mahadev and resident of Kami village in Makthal Mandal, Mahbubnagar District. She alleged in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition that her husband was taken into police custody by the first respondent on 9-5-2001, confined him in illegal detention and subjected to severe torture and ill-treatment, as a result of which he died in the police lock up. She pleaded that on 9-5-2001, at about 3.00 p.m. the Sub- Inspector of Police, first respondent herein, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and other policemen came to the village in connection with Crime No. 31 of 2001 and arrested her husband. At the time of arrest, the Sarpanch of the village, relatives, neighbours and village-men and herself were present. Mahadev was taken into custody in connection with a criminal case. He was taken away to the police station with handcuffs. Immediately, herself, Sarpanch and others rushed to the police station and requested the first respondent to set Mahadev free. They were informed that Mahadev was taken into custody in connection with culpable homicide case and as investigation is in progress, Mahadev will be produced before the Court after the investigation. Believing the police, they left for their village. On the next day, when she visited the police station and begged the Sub-Inspector and others, they did not allow to see her husband. After some time, she was allowed to see her husband and she found Mahadev in the lock up without dress and was severely tortured. She provided food to her husband, who cried saying that the police have severely beaten up and ill- treated him for the whole day. Knowing the pathetic situation she requested the police not to torture him and produce before the Court. But the Sub-Inspector of Police informed her that if she pays money her husband will not be tortured and he will be set free. She requested the Village Sarpanch and brother of her husband to help her. She also alleged that the Sarpanch of the village and her brother-in-law went to the police station and found Mahadev with handcuffs chained to the window. He told his brother that he was subjected to severe torture and that he will be killed if money is not paid to the Sub-Inspector and other policemen. He requested to sell away the land and pay money to the Sub-Inspector. The brother of Mahadev witnessed the cruelty and inhuman treatment meted out by the police.

(3.) It is further alleged that on 14-5-2001, police informed that her husband is absconding from the police station and asked her to find out the whereabouts of her husband. When she went to the Sarpanch, she was informed that the dead body of her husband was lying at the outskirts of Makthal village. She rushed to the spot and found the body of her husband lying in the topes. She found torture marks on the body and cement marks under the foot. Some of the villagers, Sarpanch and brother of the deceased came to the spot and requested the police not to shift the body as it was a suspicious death. She also alleged that her husband was tortured from 9-5-2001 as a result of which he died in the police custody. When various organizations raised hue and cry, a Magisterial enquiry was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, who submitted a report to the District Magistrate on 16-5-2001 holding that Mahadev has had been in the police custody since 9-5-2001 and that it is surprising as to how Mahadev escaped from the police custody. She also alleged that she lodged an oral complaint before the respondents to register a criminal case against the Sub-Inspector and other Policemen, in vain. They only registered Crime No. 33 of 2001 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on 14-5-2001 and also refused to supply a copy of the FIR. She also approached the Superintendent of Police and lodged a complaint. But the second respondent neither directed to register the case nor taken any action against the police. Therefore, she alleged violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and filed a writ petition.