IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20..01..2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.M.Y.EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Appeal No. 1241 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 9. … Appellant/Ist Respondent Vs. 1. Subbulakshmi, W/o Subbaraman, 4, D/6, Sandeeswara Nayanar Street, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-2. 2. Managala Dhanraj Former Deputy Superintendent of Police, Now in Central Jail, Trichy. … Respondents/Petitioner & 2nd Respondent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No. 15306 of 2000 dated 18.11.2009 on the file of this Court. This Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of India praying for a 'writ of Mandamus' directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the petitioner. For Appellant :::: Mr.Raja Kalifulla, Govt. Pleader Assisted by Ms.M.Sneha, Govt. Advocate For Respondent 1 :::: Mrs. Chitra Sampath https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T The Hon’ble Chief Justice and T.S.Sivagnanam, J This appeal by the appellant-State of Tamil Nadu is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th November, 2009 passed in W.P.No. 15306 of 2000 whereby the learned single Judge awarded a compensation of Rs.9 lakhs together with interest at 9% as compensation to the first respondent-writ petitioner, who was the victim of rape at the hands of the superior police officials. 2. The writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.9 lakhs as compensation on account of the criminal act committed by the second respondent-former Deputy Superintendent of Police. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:- The first respondent-writ petitioner was residing in Nagal Kulam Village within the limits of Nanguneri Police Circle in Tirunelveli District. The second respondent was the Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Circle in the year 1984. It seems that there was a dispute between the writ petitioner and her sister-in-law with respect to the residential house where she was residing. According to the writ petitioner, her sister-in-law was in forcible occupation of a portion of the house. Annoyed over the issue, the writ petitioner and her husband went to the residence-cum-office of the second respondent on 7th June, 1984 to prefer a complaint of forcible occupation of her house by her sister-in-law. The first respondent reached the office of the second respondent at about 6.00 p.m. and reported the matter to him, who in turn told the first respondent that her sister-in-law had already given a complaint against her and her husband through an advocate, who will be coming soon, and he assured her husband that he will finish the enquiry soon and send the first respondent. According to the first respondent, only thereafter she came to know the motive of the second respondent in sending her husband and before she could realize the ground reality, the second respondent by show of force committed rape on her. 4. Knocking the doors of justice, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Superintendent of Police on 08.06.1984, which was registered as a case in Crime No.555/1984 under Section 376 IPC on the file of Palayamkottai Police Station. The complaint was forwarded to the Sub-Collector, Cheranmadevi for enquiry, who in turn conducted an enquiry on 13.06.1984 and submitted his report. 5. When the matter thus stood, the second respondent filed a petition before this Court in Crl.M.P.No.4176 of 1984 to quash the First Information Report registered in Cr.No.555/1984 on the ground that before the submission of report by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is not permissible in law to register a First Information https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Report. The said petition was allowed by the High Court. Meanwhile, the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted his report, which was challenged by the second respondent in W.P.No.8/85 for a direction to quash the report. The said writ petition was also allowed directing to conduct a fresh enquiry after giving opportunity to the second respondent. 6. Again the process was started afresh. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry on 13.09.1988. The petitioner was examined twice and other witnesses were also examined, nearly after four years from the date of the incident. Thereafter, a report was submitted to the Government. The Government of Tamil Nadu accepted the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and issued G.O.Ms.No.1244 dated 25th July, 1989, by which a direction was issued to initiate criminal proceedings as well as departmental enquiry against the second respondent. The aforesaid Government order was challenged by the second respondent in W.P.No.1209 of 1989, which was dismissed on 06.03.1990. 7. Meanwhile, the second respondent was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. In pursuance of G.O.No.1244, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmadevi filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri in P.R.C.No.1/1990. The petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted an enquiry and during the course of enquiry, the petitioner as well as her husband tendered evidence. The second respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.5977 of 1990 before the High Court to transfer P.R.C.No.1/1990 from the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nanguneri to the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli. The said petition was allowed. Countering the same, the first respondent filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli not to entertain the matter, as she apprehend that she would not get justice in the matter. The petitioner pursued the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted interim stay of the order of transfer and finally the appeal was allowed and the order of transfer was recalled. The Supreme Court also gave directions to the trial Court to dispose of the matter within three months. Accordingly, the case was transferred from Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nanguneri to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and later to Assistant Sessions Court, Tenkasi on administrative grounds. The Sessions case was registered in S.C.No.2628/1990. 8. Before the transfer of case from Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri to Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli summons in the case was not served to the witnesses for more than a year in P.R.C.No.1/1990. The first respondent used to go to Magistrate Court, Nanguneri to ascertain whether summons have been served. It later revealed that summons was deliberately not served. During the course of trial, 8 witnesses were examined out of 15 witnesses cited by the prosecution. In the meantime, the second respondent filed Crl.O.P.No.116/1995 for a direction to the prosecution to conclude the trial with examination of five witnesses. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court, which was appealed in High Court by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ way of Crl.R.C.No.687 of 1995. The said revision petition was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to proceed on with the trial. 9. It is the case of the first respondent, that the second respondent, in order to drag the proceedings, filed innumerable petitions before the trial Court and the High Court, and all those petitions were dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. The second respondent also filed Crl.M.P.No.1498 of 1996 to set aside the order in Crl.R.C.No.687 of 1995, which was dismissed by the High Court with a direction to conduct day to day trial of the case. Accordingly, the case was taken up during 19.02.1996 to 16.06.1996. 10. According to the first respondent, on an application filed by her, the Government of Tamil Nadu appointed Thiru V.Jayaprakash, Additional Public Prosecutor of Tirunelveli as Special Public Prosecutor in this case. Since the Additional Public Prosecutor was not allowed travel expenses, the first respondent had to incur the expenses for the same. The second respondent filed Crl.R.C.No.508 of 1996 challenging the propriety and legality of the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.504 of 1996 in S.C.No.407 of 1993 rejecting his prayer to recall P.W.1 for further cross examination and for supply of documents. 11. In the meanwhile, according to the first respondent, the High Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the second respondent on 12th March, 1996 and he was remanded on 16th June, 1996. However, he was enlarged on bail on his producing a copy of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.4915/1996 by the High Court, which, however, later on was found to be a forged one. The said fact came to light only on account of the enquiry conducted by the first respondent. A contempt proceeding has also been initiated against the second respondent for production of forged bail order. 12. Finally, after a series of petitions and counter petitions, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenkasi convicted the second respondent for the offence under Sections 343, 376(2)(a)(c) read with Section 201 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of eleven years. The appeal preferred against the said conviction, also ended in dismissal. 13. In substance, the gripe of the writ petitioner-first respondent is that on account of opprobrious act committed by the second respondent, the life of the first respondent was ruined and it brought shame, humiliation, misery and torture to her, thereby she was not able to move freely in the society. The humiliation and torture she underwent during the fifteen years of litigation cannot be explained in words. She had to sell out all her belongings including her residential buildings to get justice. Hence, the Government of Tamil Nadu is vicariously liable for the criminal act committed by the second respondent and as such the Government is bound to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. Although the Government has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ paid compensation of Rs.1 lakhs by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.602 dated 13.4.1998, yet the same was not the actual compensation which she is entitled to. Hence, she has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to pay an amount of Rs.9 lakhs as compensation. 14. The first respondent approached this Court by filing the writ petition for compensation on the ground interlia that the second respondent being the custodian of law was entrusted with the solemn duty of crime management. Although, he was duty bound to protect the life, liberty and property of the people, because of this barbaric act of committing rape on the first respondent, her life has been jeopardized and her liberty to move freely in the society has been hindered and, therefore, the State is bound to compensate her. 15. The learned single Judge, after dealing with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and discussing the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions, came to the conclusion that the first respondent-writ petitioner, being only 28 years at the time of the incident, is entitled to compensation. Her ambition to lead a normal and active life was shattered on account of uncivilized human conduct of the second respondent. Hence, interest of justice would be served if a sum of Rs.8 lakhs is awarded as compensation, after adjusting a sum of Rs.1 lakh already paid to her. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed directing the appellant- State to pay an amount of Rs.8 lakhs as compensation to the writ petitioner-first respondent with interest at 9% from the date of filing of the writ petition. 16. We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 17. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader raised two points. Firstly, learned Government Pleader submitted that the incident took place as far back as in the year 1984, but the writ petition was filed after about 16 years i.e., in the year 2000, and therefore, the learned single Judge ought to have held that the claim made by the writ petitioner-first respondent is a belated one. Consequently, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the learned single Judge was not correct in law in awarding interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the writ petition. 18. We do not find any force in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. As noticed above, it is such a heinous crime of rape committed by a senior police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, on a lady aged only 28 years, who came for protection of her life and liberty. When the police officials, who are the custodian of law are duty bound to protect the life, liberty and property of the people, commit such a barbaric act of rape, the State is bound to pay adequate compensation to the victim. Even the compensation of Rs.9 Lakhs will not compensate the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ injury caused to the victim lady. Such compensation will not restore the normal and active life of the lady due to the uncivilized act committed by the police officer. Hence, we are of the view that the learned single Judge ought to have awarded the total compensation of Rs.9 Lakhs as was claimed by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. 19. So far as interest awarded by learned single Judge on the amount of compensation is concerned, the same cannot be held to be unjustified. From the facts referred to in the impugned judgment, it is clear that the incident of rape was in the year 1984 and since then the victim has been approaching the Court for justice. Firstly, she filed a complaint before the District Superintendent of Police, but the same was quashed on technical grounds. She moved the High Court in the year 1985 from where she got a direction for initiation of fresh enquiry. The matter remained pending and in the year 1989 a direction was issued by the Government for initiation of criminal proceeding as well as Departmental proceeding. Consequently, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate in the year 1990, which remained pending for a number of years and the 2nd respondent- police officer succeeded in dragging the proceeding. At some stage, she had incurred expenses to prosecute the criminal case through the Addl. Public Prosecutor. The 2nd respondent, on the basis of production of a forged bail order was enlarged on bail. Finally, the trial ended in conviction. It is therefore clear that during the 15 years when the litigation went on, besides humiliation and torture, the 1st respondent-victim had to sell out her belongings, including her residential building to get justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned single Judge rightly allowed interest on the compensation amount so awarded. 20. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter, we are of the view that the 2nd respondent is entitled to compensation of Rs.9 Lakhs together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition. This writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid modification. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The amount of compensation together with interest shall be paid by the appellant within six weeks with a liberty to recover the same from the 2nd respondent in accordance with law. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar PV/GLN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Secretary to Government Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 1 cc To M/s.Chitra, Advocate, SR.3915 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.4328 Judgment in W.A. No.1241 of 2010 CK (CO) RH (3.2.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/