Baskaran v. The Inspector of Police E-2, Royapettah Police Station Chennai-600 014 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate: 29.07.2010THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAMCrl.O.P. No.8722 of 2010Baskaran... Petitioner.-Vs.-State rep. by1. 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 directionto the second respondent herein to depute a competent investigatingofficer to take up the complaint dated 23.03.2010 given to the secondrespondent and register a case based on the complaint. For Petitioners :Mr.M.K. SampathFor Respondents :Mr.P. KumaresanPublic ProsecutorORDERThis petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondentherein to depute a competent investigating officer to take up thecomplaint dated 23.03.2010 given to the second respondent andregister a case based on the complaint. 2. The petitioner informs that he was forcibly taken by policein plain clothes at about 6.45 a.m. on 16.02.2010 from the residenceof his employer. He was pushed into a van and his two wheeler wasalso taken along. The petitioner further informs that his eyes weretied with a cloth and a gun was kept at his hip, threatening to putan end to his life and thereafter he was taken to an undisclosedplace somewhere near ECR road. After reaching the said place, he wasseverely attacked with lathies, keeping him in a room. He was alsoattacked severely by some other police men, who already werestationed there and that while beating him severely, the Head of thePolice 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 ofTirunelveli. As a result of severe beating his ears and nose werebleeding and the Inspector of Police by name Suriyakumar, who is oneof the assailants had taken him to a nearby doctor known to him fortreatment and the beating was continued the next day. Later, he wasagain taken to a place nearby called Hotel Sathkar at Kilpauk whereSrilankan refugees were staying and illegally detained there. He wascontinuously beaten severely by adopting various methods and thepetitioner was subjected to all sorts of humiliation, harassment andtorture. After taking the petitioner and his vehicle in the van, thepolice team decided to take him to Tirunelveli. Before proceeding toTirunelveli, the police men wanted to drop the vehicle of thepetitioner in a nearby police station. Accordingly, they haveapproached some police stations. They have finally approached SembiumPolice Station, Chennai in this regard. All such stations refusedtheir request. The police team then took the petitioner and hisvehicle to Tirunelveli. Enroute to Tirunelveli, the police teamobtained signatures of the petitioner in some statements prepared bythem and in some blank papers under threat and coercion. Before hewas taken to Tirunelveli, they had passed on some information to therelatives of the petitioner by using his cell phone. The petitionersubmits that the police team took him and his vehicle to Tirunelveliwhere they reached on 18.02.2010 at about 2.30a.m. After reachingTirunelveli, he was detained illegally in a room located opposite theoffice of the Higher police officials. There also he was beaten upand they had compelled him to plead guilty of an offence. The policeteam again had taken him to a nearby camp at Tiruneveli at about 12noon on 18.02.2010. He was shown to some persons who were detained bythem. Such persons were asked to point out the petitioner as theoffender in the case framed by the police team. On the evening of18.02.2010, he was entrusted to Munneerpallam Police Station andafter detaining him there, a case was registered in the evening after6.00 p.m. on 19.02.2010 falsely on the allegation that he was inpossession of a rifle and wandering in valliyur area on a two wheelerand that one of the persons, who accompanied him was having a countrybomb. The petitioner submits that in the said police station, theyhave further obtained the signatures of the petitioner in variousstatements prepared by them and also in the blank papers and thecontents contained therein were not known to him. The petitioner wasproduced before a Magistrate. Even prior to that, the father of thepetitioner had filed a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition before thisCourt in HCP No. 313 of 2010 to trace out the whereabouts of thepetitioner, following the telegrams and complaint given after he wasillegally kidnapped and detained. 3. It is further informed that the police, before producinghim, warned him against saying anything about their various cruelacts to the learned Magistrate, under threat of foisting false casesagainst him as if he was involved in many cases of murder and dacoityand 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 CentralPrison, Palayamkottai, his injuries were recorded by the jailauthorities. The Jail Authorities also found grievous injuries allover his body. He was in a serious condition vomiting bloodfrequently and therefore, he was referred to medical treatment atjail. In the jail, he was given medical treatment for almost a weekand then he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Tirunelveliby the Jail Director and Authorities, as his condition became worse.The petitioner submits that his entire body was swollen, particularlyhis legs, hands and the face. During the course of treatment given atGeneral Hospital, Tirunelveli from 27.02.2010 to 07.03.2010, thepetitioner came to know that both his kidneys were damaged and areport was given by the doctors to that effect. Due to the failure ofthe kidneys, the petitioner was undergoing dialysis and even in suchcritical condition, it was insisted that he must admit that he wasabetting the crime said to have been committed by the said Singh. Thethreats of foisting false cases of murder and dacoity and finishinghim off in an encounter were repeated. The Doctors who have treatedthe petitioner have advised immediate treatment at GH at Chennai. Inthe meantime, the petitioner was granted bail in Crl.M.P.No. 843 of2010 based on the efforts taken by the petitioner's family. Aftergetting bail from the Court, as advised by the Doctors of TirunelveliGH, he was shifted to the Chennai GH directly for further course ofmedical treatment on 08.03.2010. There he was given treatment forkidney and other problems. The family members of the petitioner tookenormous efforts in meeting the Dean and the Doctors of the Hospitalfor giving him the best treatment by taking special care. Thepetitioner submits that in view of the treatment and special caretaken by the Doctors, the function of the kidneys of the petitionerwas restored to some level of normalcy and then he was dischargedfrom the hospital on 13.03.2010 and adviced to take continuoustreatment as out patient. The petitioner further submits that at eachand every stage of treatment, he has informed the doctors who treatedhim that due to the cruel and inhuman acts of the police, his healthcondition had become so.4. The petitioner informs that being unable to bear all suchhumiliation and cruelty at the hands of the named persons viz. 1.Suriya Kumar, Inspector of Police, Valliyur Police Station, 2. SahulHameed, 3. Srinivasan (2 & 3 are attached to S.P.Wing as informationreceived) and 4. Arul, Inspector of Police, Munneerpallam PoliceStation, Tirunelveli, the petitioner has preferred a complaint to thesecond respondent herein. The petitioner further informs that apartfrom the complaints given to State Government's Home Secretary andHuman Rights Commission requesting them to take immediate and promptaction against the persons responsible for kidnapping, causingcruelty to the extent of beating him into a critical condition and tothe extent of damaging vital organs of the petitioner and therebycausing danger to his life, towards foisting false cases with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ criminal intention to meet their personal ends by abusing theirpowers which has resulted in immobilizing the petitioner. Thepetitioner submits that apart from the complaint given by him, hisfather A. Balasubramanian and the wife of the petitioner by name B.Revathy had given complaints regarding high handed acts of the policeofficials for no fault of his to the State Government and higherpolice officials, for which also there was no response from them. Thewife of the petitioner had also met the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, Chermadevi, Tirunelveli requesting him to take appropriatelegal action against the persons concerned. The first respondentpolice is added as party respondent, as the occurrence had takenplace within the limits and jurisdiction of the first respondentherein where the petitioner had been working. The petitioner alsosubmits that he is a law abiding citizen and he is not involved inany crime as of today except the present false complaint foistedagainst him. He has not given any confession statement at any pointof time to any one and the police themselves had prepared all suchstatements to suit their convenience and as such, the FIR relating tosuch false case has been prepared by the police. The petitioner hasbecome a scape goat for no fault of his and been subjected tocruelty, caused untold hardship and suffering. The medical reportswould amply prove how the petitioner was subjected to harassment andcruelty. Despite all this, nothing was done by the respondents hereinin bringing the culprits to book. The complainant informs of meetingthe second respondent in person and of preferring the complaint onceagain on 25.03.2010 besides complaints given by his father to theChairman, State Human Rights Commission, Chennai dated 01.03.2010 andthe complaint given by his wife about the atrocities and inhuman actsof the erring police officials and that no concrete satisfactoryaction was taken against the persons involved in committing theheinous crime against him as of today. The petitioner further submitsthat the police personnel involved in committing such crimes againstthe petitioner threaten him and his family members of filing falsecases of murder, robbery, dacoity against him on account of which, hewould be shot in an encounter in the event of their exposing thewrongs committed by the erring police team.5. Making allegations as above, the petitioner seeks a directionto the second respondent to depute a competent investigating agencyto conduct investigation and take proper action against the accusedpersons and on the basis of the complaint dated 23.03.2010. Whilelearned counsel for the petitioner would stress on the abovecontentions, learned Public Prosecutor would inform that theallegations made by the petitioner are totally untrue. The petitionerwas found in possession of arms and was arrested along with otheraccused in Crime No. 138 of 2010 and produced before the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli by the Munneerpallam Police.Arms recovered have been deposited before the Court. A case of murderof the year 2007 went undetected. One S.S.S.Shyam Sunder Singh Nadarwas 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 NagarPolice Station, Chennai. Such person was taken into custody andduring the course of interrogation, it was found that this petitionerwas the prime accused in the case of murder committed in 2007 atTirunelveli, which had gone undetected. Such interrogation furtherrevealed that pursuant to the arrest of S.S.S. Shyam Sundar SinghNadar on 07.02.2009 and towards taking revenge, arms had beenprocured by the petitioner and others towards committing murder. Inthe course of interrogation, S.S.S.Shyam Sunder Singh Nadarparticularly disclosed such as the purpose of deputing thispetitioner to Tirunelveli. Informing the above, learned PublicProsecutor would submit that in the circumstance, the allegationsmade by the petitioner of having been taken into illegal custody werefalse. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the statusreport filed by the Inspector of Police, which reads as follows:"2. It is humbly submitted that I have joined ValliyoorPolice Station as Inspector of Police on 22.07.2010 and I amholding additional charge of Radhapuram Police Station withinTirunelveli (Dt.). I came to Chennai temporarily and filing thisStatus Report on information in connection with above saiddirection petition. 3.It is humbly submitted that on or before 26.08.2007, oneunknown male person was murdered by unknown culprits and set fireto body by using sugar and petrol in order to conceal the evidenceof murder. In this connection, one Kakumperumal aged 60/2007, soneof Subramaniya Nadar, North Street of Singarathope Village, lodgeda complaint before the Inspector of Police,Radhapuram PoliceStation at 19.00 hours on 26.08.2007 for taking action. On thebasis a case registered in Radhapuram Police Station P.S.Crime No.129 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.(suspicious death) alteredinto Section 302 IPC. This case was treated as undetectable on21.03.2009 since the identity of deceased was not known and theaccused could not be fixed and final report has been submittedbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyur and thefinal report was taken on file as per R.C's No.322 of 2009 on16.11.2009.4. 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, 32years (A2), S/o.Mahalingam Nadar 5) Senthilmurugan, 33 years (A3),S/o. Iyyadurai 6) Bhaskaran, 31 years (A1), S/o. Balasubramanianarrested by the Inspector Police, Munneerpallam Police Station on18.02.2010. One more accused S.S.S.Shyam Sunder Singh Nadar whowas in custody in Crime No. 138 of 2010 on the file of K-4, AnnaNagar Police Station, Chennai confined in Central Prison, Puzhalwas 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 SubstancesAct 1908 and recorded his confession statements on 07.03.2010 at8.00 hours.5. It is further submitted that in the course ofinvestigation, it came to light that one Shyam Sundar Singh Nadar@ S.S.S. Nadar was also involved in Radhapuram Police StationCrime No. 129 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.(suspicious death)altered into 302 IPC. It also came to light that the said accusedS.S.S. Singh Nadar was confined in another case for murder and hewas produced with P.T. Warrant in this case on 04.03.2010. InPolice custody, the said accused namely S.S.S. Singh Nadar hadgiven his confession stating that Baskaran (petitioner herein)took a person from Madras who was later done to death by all ofthem. Though the occurrence is said to have taken place in theyear 2007, till date the identity of the deceased was not knownsince no clue was obtained till date.6. It is further submitted that during the course ofinvestigation after getting confession statement from both theaccused and it also came to light that the case of man missing isregistered in Crime No. 529 of 2007 on 30.08.2007 during therelevant period of time in the K-7, ICF Police Station, Madras andthe same is also pending and the case was undetected as on date.This is to be investigated to find out whether the man missing wasdone to death by the said petition and others at Tirunelveli(Dt.). It is also submitted that the petitioner Baskaran is alsoinvolved in this case and he is yet to be arrested in this case.The other accused S.S.S. Singh Nadar had confessed that thepetitioner alone has the knowledge of deceased done to death inthe year 2007 and the motive for murder is known only to thepetitioner herein namely Baskaran.7. It is further submitted that though the said petitionerwas arrested in Crime No. 48 of 2010 by the Inspector of Police,Munneerpallam Police Station, knowing that he will be arrested inmurder case, in order to evade the arrest, the said petitioner gotadmitted into the hospital by one reason or other and stayed inthe hospital till his release and came to Madras. Theinvestigation also created a suspicion of his admission in thehospital is only to avoid the arrest in the case registered inCrime No. 129 of 2007 of Radhapuram Police Station under Section174 Cr.P.C.(suspicious death) altered into 302 IPC in which thepetitioner Baskaran is yet to be arrested. On 07.03.2010, at 8.00hours the accused Shyam Sundar Singh Nadar has stated in hisconfession statement that before 3 or 4 years back the petitionerBaskaran had kidnapped one unknown male person aged about 42 to 45years from Villivakkam, Chennai to Valliyur and murdered him alongwith his associates and burnt the body at a remote area near https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Singarathoppe Village within the limit of Radhapuram PoliceStation, Tirunelveli (Dt.). As per the confession statement, theclue of the accused came to light in this episode. But he did notknow the details of the deceased and motive behind the murder.Further the accused stated that the said Baskaran alone knows thedetails of the deceased in this murder case.8. It is further submitted that I am taking steps to reopenthe above said murder case in order to prosecute the culprits anddetect the deceased in this case at present.9. It is humbly submitted that the arrest and custody of thepetitioner Baskaran is very essential in order to unearth themurder offence in the interest of justice." 6. This Court had called for the records of the JailAuthorities, Central Prison, Palayamkottai towards ascertaining, ifthere was any matter which calls for investigation on the complaintof the petitioner. Such records inform that the petitioner wasadmitted 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 withTab. 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 to22.02.2010. On 22.02.2010, he vomited several times. The vomit wasmixed with blood. So, he was admitted in prison hospital. Thepetitioner was afforded treatment and the records inform that heresumed oral feeds on 25.02.2010. He was treated in Prison hospitalas an inpatient from 22.02.2010 to 27.02.2010 and on 27.02.2010, hewas referred to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital in stablecondition to the ortho / surgical OP for the opinion of experts.7. In the above circumstance, though the learned PublicProsecutor would submit that the action of the petitioner in stayingat 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 thatthe petitioner succeeded in being released on bail directly from thehospital in Crime No. 48 of 2010 on the file of the MunneerpallamPolice 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 evenwithout being produced before the learned Magistrate, this Courtfinds that the petitioner did bear several injuries as on the date ofhis admission into Central Prison, Palayamkottai. When such is thecase, it would not be for this Court to determine where and how thepetitioner came to suffer such injuries. Prima facie, this Court isof the opinion that the complaint made by the petitioner is onecalling for investigation. It is only such investigation which willinform the truth or otherwise of the rival contentions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. For the above stated reasons, the petition shall standallowed. The second respondent shall forward the complaint of thepetitioner dated 23.03.2010 to the CBCID, Chennai, who shall registera case thereupon and conduct investigation in accordance with law.This order shall not cause any prejudice to the investigation intoany other cases relating to this petitioner by the 1st respondent orother Police.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrararTo1. 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, Madras1 cc To Mr.M.K.Sampath, Advocate, SR.55098Crl.O.P. No.8722 of 2010JRG (CO)RH (12.8.10)