IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date: 29.07.2010 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P. No.8722 of 2010 Baskaran ... Petitioner. -Vs.- State rep. by 1. The Inspector of Police E-2, Royapettah Police Station Chennai-600 014. 2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking a direction to the second respondent herein to depute a competent investigating officer to take up the complaint dated 23.03.2010 given to the second respondent and register a case based on the complaint. For Petitioners : Mr.M.K. Sampath For Respondents : Mr.P. Kumaresan Public Prosecutor ORDER This petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent herein to depute a competent investigating officer to take up the complaint dated 23.03.2010 given to the second respondent and register a case based on the complaint. 2. The petitioner informs that he was forcibly taken by police in plain clothes at about 6.45 a.m. on 16.02.2010 from the residence of his employer. He was pushed into a van and his two wheeler was also taken along. The petitioner further informs that his eyes were tied with a cloth and a gun was kept at his hip, threatening to put an end to his life and thereafter he was taken to an undisclosed place somewhere near ECR road. After reaching the said place, he was severely attacked with lathies, keeping him in a room. He was also attacked severely by some other police men, who already were stationed there and that while beating him severely, the Head of the Police team which kidnapped the petitioner had insisted and forced https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ him to admit that he abetted a crime committed by one Singh of Tirunelveli. As a result of severe beating his ears and nose were bleeding and the Inspector of Police by name Suriyakumar, who is one of the assailants had taken him to a nearby doctor known to him for treatment and the beating was continued the next day. Later, he was again taken to a place nearby called Hotel Sathkar at Kilpauk where Srilankan refugees were staying and illegally detained there. He was continuously beaten severely by adopting various methods and the petitioner was subjected to all sorts of humiliation, harassment and torture. After taking the petitioner and his vehicle in the van, the police team decided to take him to Tirunelveli. Before proceeding to Tirunelveli, the police men wanted to drop the vehicle of the petitioner in a nearby police station. Accordingly, they have approached some police stations. They have finally approached Sembium Police Station, Chennai in this regard. All such stations refused their request. The police team then took the petitioner and his vehicle to Tirunelveli. Enroute to Tirunelveli, the police team obtained signatures of the petitioner in some statements prepared by them and in some blank papers under threat and coercion. Before he was taken to Tirunelveli, they had passed on some information to the relatives of the petitioner by using his cell phone. The petitioner submits that the police team took him and his vehicle to Tirunelveli where they reached on 18.02.2010 at about 2.30a.m. After reaching Tirunelveli, he was detained illegally in a room located opposite the office of the Higher police officials. There also he was beaten up and they had compelled him to plead guilty of an offence. The police team again had taken him to a nearby camp at Tiruneveli at about 12 noon on 18.02.2010. He was shown to some persons who were detained by them. Such persons were asked to point out the petitioner as the offender in the case framed by the police team. On the evening of 18.02.2010, he was entrusted to Munneerpallam Police Station and after detaining him there, a case was registered in the evening after 6.00 p.m. on 19.02.2010 falsely on the allegation that he was in possession of a rifle and wandering in valliyur area on a two wheeler and that one of the persons, who accompanied him was having a country bomb. The petitioner submits that in the said police station, they have further obtained the signatures of the petitioner in various statements prepared by them and also in the blank papers and the contents contained therein were not known to him. The petitioner was produced before a Magistrate. Even prior to that, the father of the petitioner had filed a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court in HCP No. 313 of 2010 to trace out the whereabouts of the petitioner, following the telegrams and complaint given after he was illegally kidnapped and detained. 3. It is further informed that the police, before producing him, warned him against saying anything about their various cruel acts to the learned Magistrate, under threat of foisting false cases against him as if he was involved in many cases of murder and dacoity and that he would be shot in an encounter. Owing to the same, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner did not disclose anything before the learned Magistrate. Even at the time of handing over the petitioner to the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, his injuries were recorded by the jail authorities. The Jail Authorities also found grievous injuries all over his body. He was in a serious condition vomiting blood frequently and therefore, he was referred to medical treatment at jail. In the jail, he was given medical treatment for almost a week and then he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Tirunelveli by the Jail Director and Authorities, as his condition became worse. The petitioner submits that his entire body was swollen, particularly his legs, hands and the face. During the course of treatment given at General Hospital, Tirunelveli from 27.02.2010 to 07.03.2010, the petitioner came to know that both his kidneys were damaged and a report was given by the doctors to that effect. Due to the failure of the kidneys, the petitioner was undergoing dialysis and even in such critical condition, it was insisted that he must admit that he was abetting the crime said to have been committed by the said Singh. The threats of foisting false cases of murder and dacoity and finishing him off in an encounter were repeated. The Doctors who have treated the petitioner have advised immediate treatment at GH at Chennai. In the meantime, the petitioner was granted bail in Crl.M.P.No. 843 of 2010 based on the efforts taken by the petitioner's family. After getting bail from the Court, as advised by the Doctors of Tirunelveli GH, he was shifted to the Chennai GH directly for further course of medical treatment on 08.03.2010. There he was given treatment for kidney and other problems. The family members of the petitioner took enormous efforts in meeting the Dean and the Doctors of the Hospital for giving him the best treatment by taking special care. The petitioner submits that in view of the treatment and special care taken by the Doctors, the function of the kidneys of the petitioner was restored to some level of normalcy and then he was discharged from the hospital on 13.03.2010 and adviced to take continuous treatment as out patient. The petitioner further submits that at each and every stage of treatment, he has informed the doctors who treated him that due to the cruel and inhuman acts of the police, his health condition had become so. 4. The petitioner informs that being unable to bear all such humiliation and cruelty at the hands of the named persons viz. 1. Suriya Kumar, Inspector of Police, Valliyur Police Station, 2. Sahul Hameed, 3. Srinivasan (2 & 3 are attached to S.P.Wing as information received) and 4. Arul, Inspector of Police, Munneerpallam Police Station, Tirunelveli, the petitioner has preferred a complaint to the second respondent herein. The petitioner further informs that apart from the complaints given to State Government's Home Secretary and Human Rights Commission requesting them to take immediate and prompt action against the persons responsible for kidnapping, causing cruelty to the extent of beating him into a critical condition and to the extent of damaging vital organs of the petitioner and thereby causing danger to his life, towards foisting false cases with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ criminal intention to meet their personal ends by abusing their powers which has resulted in immobilizing the petitioner. The petitioner submits that apart from the complaint given by him, his father A. Balasubramanian and the wife of the petitioner by name B. Revathy had given complaints regarding high handed acts of the police officials for no fault of his to the State Government and higher police officials, for which also there was no response from them. The wife of the petitioner had also met the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chermadevi, Tirunelveli requesting him to take appropriate legal action against the persons concerned. The first respondent police is added as party respondent, as the occurrence had taken place within the limits and jurisdiction of the first respondent herein where the petitioner had been working. The petitioner also submits that he is a law abiding citizen and he is not involved in any crime as of today except the present false complaint foisted against him. He has not given any confession statement at any point of time to any one and the police themselves had prepared all such statements to suit their convenience and as such, the FIR relating to such false case has been prepared by the police. The petitioner has become a scape goat for no fault of his and been subjected to cruelty, caused untold hardship and suffering. The medical reports would amply prove how the petitioner was subjected to harassment and cruelty. Despite all this, nothing was done by the respondents herein in bringing the culprits to book. The complainant informs of meeting the second respondent in person and of preferring the complaint once again on 25.03.2010 besides complaints given by his father to the Chairman, State Human Rights Commission, Chennai dated 01.03.2010 and the complaint given by his wife about the atrocities and inhuman acts of the erring police officials and that no concrete satisfactory action was taken against the persons involved in committing the heinous crime against him as of today. The petitioner further submits that the police personnel involved in committing such crimes against the petitioner threaten him and his family members of filing false cases of murder, robbery, dacoity against him on account of which, he would be shot in an encounter in the event of their exposing the wrongs committed by the erring police team. 5. Making allegations as above, the petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to depute a competent investigating agency to conduct investigation and take proper action against the accused persons and on the basis of the complaint dated 23.03.2010. While learned counsel for the petitioner would stress on the above contentions, learned Public Prosecutor would inform that the allegations made by the petitioner are totally untrue. The petitioner was found in possession of arms and was arrested along with other accused in Crime No. 138 of 2010 and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli by the Munneerpallam Police. Arms recovered have been deposited before the Court. A case of murder of the year 2007 went undetected. One S.S.S.Shyam Sunder Singh Nadar was arrested on 07.02.2009 in connection with a case under Section https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 307 IPC in Crime No. 138 of 2010 on the file of the K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai. Such person was taken into custody and during the course of interrogation, it was found that this petitioner was the prime accused in the case of murder committed in 2007 at Tirunelveli, which had gone undetected. Such interrogation further revealed that pursuant to the arrest of S.S.S. Shyam Sundar Singh Nadar on 07.02.2009 and towards taking revenge, arms had been procured by the petitioner and others towards committing murder. In the course of interrogation, S.S.S.Shyam Sunder Singh Nadar particularly disclosed such as the purpose of deputing this petitioner to Tirunelveli. Informing the above, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in the circumstance, the allegations made by the petitioner of having been taken into illegal custody were false. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the status report filed by the Inspector of Police, which reads as follows: "2. It is humbly submitted that I have joined Valliyoor Police Station as Inspector of Police on 22.07.2010 and I am holding additional charge of Radhapuram Police Station within Tirunelveli (Dt.). I came to Chennai temporarily and filing this Status Report on information in connection with above said direction petition. 3.It is humbly submitted that on or before 26.08.2007, one unknown male person was murdered by unknown culprits and set fire to body by using sugar and petrol in order to conceal the evidence of murder. In this connection, one Kakumperumal aged 60/2007, sone of Subramaniya Nadar, North Street of Singarathope Village, lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police,Radhapuram Police Station at 19.00 hours on 26.08.2007 for taking action. On the basis a case registered in Radhapuram Police Station P.S.Crime No. 129 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.(suspicious death) altered into Section 302 IPC. This case was treated as undetectable on 21.03.2009 since the identity of deceased was not known and the accused could not be fixed and final report has been submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyur and the final report was taken on file as per R.C's No.322 of 2009 on 16.11.2009. 4. It is further submitted that it came to understand that 1) Rajasekaran, 29 years (A6), S/o. Sundarapandy Nadar 2)Murugesan, 32 years (A4), S/o. Chelladurai Nadar and 3) Chandrabose, 29 years (A5), S/o. Loordhu Nadar 4) Ellian @ Shanmugaraj @ Thangam, 32 years (A2), S/o.Mahalingam Nadar 5) Senthilmurugan, 33 years (A3), S/o. Iyyadurai 6) Bhaskaran, 31 years (A1), S/o. Balasubramanian arrested by the Inspector Police, Munneerpallam Police Station on 18.02.2010. One more accused S.S.S.Shyam Sunder Singh Nadar who was in custody in Crime No. 138 of 2010 on the file of K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai confined in Central Prison, Puzhal was also arrested on 26.02.2010 in connection with Munneerpallam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Police Station Crime No. 48 of 2010 under Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) and 27(1) Arms Act 1959 and Section 5(a) of Explosive Substances Act 1908 and recorded his confession statements on 07.03.2010 at 8.00 hours. 5. It is further submitted that in the course of investigation, it came to light that one Shyam Sundar Singh Nadar @ S.S.S. Nadar was also involved in Radhapuram Police Station Crime No. 129 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.(suspicious death) altered into 302 IPC. It also came to light that the said accused S.S.S. Singh Nadar was confined in another case for murder and he was produced with P.T. Warrant in this case on 04.03.2010. In Police custody, the said accused namely S.S.S. Singh Nadar had given his confession stating that Baskaran (petitioner herein) took a person from Madras who was later done to death by all of them. Though the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 2007, till date the identity of the deceased was not known since no clue was obtained till date. 6. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation after getting confession statement from both the accused and it also came to light that the case of man missing is registered in Crime No. 529 of 2007 on 30.08.2007 during the relevant period of time in the K-7, ICF Police Station, Madras and the same is also pending and the case was undetected as on date. This is to be investigated to find out whether the man missing was done to death by the said petition and others at Tirunelveli (Dt.). It is also submitted that the petitioner Baskaran is also involved in this case and he is yet to be arrested in this case. The other accused S.S.S. Singh Nadar had confessed that the petitioner alone has the knowledge of deceased done to death in the year 2007 and the motive for murder is known only to the petitioner herein namely Baskaran. 7. It is further submitted that though the said petitioner was arrested in Crime No. 48 of 2010 by the Inspector of Police, Munneerpallam Police Station, knowing that he will be arrested in murder case, in order to evade the arrest, the said petitioner got admitted into the hospital by one reason or other and stayed in the hospital till his release and came to Madras. The investigation also created a suspicion of his admission in the hospital is only to avoid the arrest in the case registered in Crime No. 129 of 2007 of Radhapuram Police Station under Section 174 Cr.P.C.(suspicious death) altered into 302 IPC in which the petitioner Baskaran is yet to be arrested. On 07.03.2010, at 8.00 hours the accused Shyam Sundar Singh Nadar has stated in his confession statement that before 3 or 4 years back the petitioner Baskaran had kidnapped one unknown male person aged about 42 to 45 years from Villivakkam, Chennai to Valliyur and murdered him along with his associates and burnt the body at a remote area near https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Singarathoppe Village within the limit of Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli (Dt.). As per the confession statement, the clue of the accused came to light in this episode. But he did not know the details of the deceased and motive behind the murder. Further the accused stated that the said Baskaran alone knows the details of the deceased in this murder case. 8. It is further submitted that I am taking steps to reopen the above said murder case in order to prosecute the culprits and detect the deceased in this case at present. 9. It is humbly submitted that the arrest and custody of the petitioner Baskaran is very essential in order to unearth the murder offence in the interest of justice." 6. This Court had called for the records of the Jail Authorities, Central Prison, Palayamkottai towards ascertaining, if there was any matter which calls for investigation on the complaint of the petitioner. Such records inform that the petitioner was admitted to Central Prison, Palayamkottai on the night of 19.02.2010. On admission, he had multiple diffused contusions over both glutei, left upper arm and both feet. He was treated as an out patient with Tab. Paracetamol 500 mg 1-1-1, Tab. Ibuprofen 200 Mg 1-1-1, Cap. Doxycycline 100 mg 1-0-1 and Diclofenac Gel from 19.02.2010 to 22.02.2010. On 22.02.2010, he vomited several times. The vomit was mixed with blood. So, he was admitted in prison hospital. The petitioner was afforded treatment and the records inform that he resumed oral feeds on 25.02.2010. He was treated in Prison hospital as an inpatient from 22.02.2010 to 27.02.2010 and on 27.02.2010, he was referred to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital in stable condition to the ortho / surgical OP for the opinion of experts. 7. In the above circumstance, though the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the action of the petitioner in staying at hospital was stage managed towards avoiding arrest in Crime No. 129 of 2007 of the Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli (Dt.) i.e. a case of murder which earlier was reported as undetected and that the petitioner succeeded in being released on bail directly from the hospital in Crime No. 48 of 2010 on the file of the Munneerpallam Police Station registered for offences under Section 25(1)(1-B) @ 27 (1) Arms Act 5(a) of Explosive Substance Act r/w.120(b)IPC even without being produced before the learned Magistrate, this Court finds that the petitioner did bear several injuries as on the date of his admission into Central Prison, Palayamkottai. When such is the case, it would not be for this Court to determine where and how the petitioner came to suffer such injuries. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint made by the petitioner is one calling for investigation. It is only such investigation which will inform the truth or otherwise of the rival contentions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. For the above stated reasons, the petition shall stand allowed. The second respondent shall forward the complaint of the petitioner dated 23.03.2010 to the CBCID, Chennai, who shall register a case thereupon and conduct investigation in accordance with law. This order shall not cause any prejudice to the investigation into any other cases relating to this petitioner by the 1st respondent or other Police. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The Inspector of Police E-2, Royapettah Police Station Chennai-600 014. 2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 1 cc To Mr.M.K.Sampath, Advocate, SR.55098 Crl.O.P. No.8722 of 2010 JRG (CO) RH (12.8.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/