Judgment · High Court · 2007

After adjourning the matter from time to time to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to receive copies of the report and the connected documents, the matter came up for further orders on 22.8.2007. 5.1. On 22.8.2007, our attention was brought to the findings of the report of the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Legal ServicesAuthority, dated 7.5.2007. The relevant paragraphs of the said report read as follows: "3. On 29.4.2007, at 7.30 a.m. I visited the Central Prison II, Puzhal, where the remand prisoners are detained. On enquiry, I found that the detenu Selvam @ Vijayaselvam @ Surya s/oPalanivel, is housed in the Association BlockII. This Block constitute two floors of 20cells, each floor having 10 cells. In cell No.8of the ground floor, the detenu Selvam @Vijayaselvam @ Surya was detained along with six others. I conducted on the spot enquiry within the Cell No.8 of Block II. I enquired thedetenu Selvam @ Vijayaselvam @ Surya and recorded his statement (Annexure II).

He would state as follows:4. The detenu stated that he is detained in that cell from 14.2.2007 under TPDA Act. Hewould further state that on the night of19.4.2007, he complained about the dinner served to him and on 20.4.2007, around 6.30 a.m. Thiru https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Karuppannan, Jailer came along with five or six warders and took him to the security block tower. He would state that he was made naked and was assaulted. When he questioned, he was further beaten up on the head and sustained bleeding injury for which, later, he was given treatment in the hospital attached to the Security block and was later brought to CellNo.8 on Saturday. He complained of pain in the right fore-limb, knee and in calf muscle. Healso complained of headache. ...23. I also examined some of the detenus who were housed in the High Security block namely(1) Selvam @ Selvaraj, (2) Vasudevan, (3)Vijayakumar @ Karikko son of Ganesh, (4)Srinivasan, son of Irayan Chettiar.

Accordingto them, on 20.4.2007 around 7 or 8.00 a.m. the warders brought some inmates from another cell to the high security block and before entering the gate, the duty warders searched them and at that time, one of the inmates resisted and used abusive words and rushed to the iron gate and dashed his head against it, thereby sustained injury.24. I respectfully submit that my enquiry would reveal two sets of statements, but the fact remains that the detenu Selvam @Vijayaselvam @ Surya had sustained head injury which was sutured and also sustained other injuries over his limb and body....31. As stated earlier, the detenu and the four others who were taken along with him to the High security block would allege that they were beaten up by the Jailer, Deputy Jailer and five or six warders. The detenu would specifically state that the Jailer Thiru Karuppannan and the Deputy Jailer Thiru Anbazhagan assaulted him and caused bleeding injury on his head.32.

On the other hand, the jail authorities would claim that the injuries were self-inflicted. The inmates in the High Securityblock would also state that the detenu had dashed his head against the iron gates voluntarily. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ...34. It is not uncommon in jails that ahardcore criminals may go to any extent to inflict injuries voluntarily. It is also not uncommon in the administration of jails, the inmates who are causing nuisances used to be separated and locked up in secluded cells as aminor punishment. It is also not uncommon that the authorities use force when the inmates resist....38. Therefore, prima facie it is evident that the detenu had suffered the injuries at the hands of the persons who dealt with him on20.4.2007 between 6.30 a.m. and 7.45 a.m.39. As stated earlier, the detenu and others would state that the injuries were inflicted by the Jailer Thiru Karuppannan and the Deputy Jailer Thiru Anbazhagan and by five or six warders who took them to the HighSecurity block.

However, the records and the statements of the jailers would show that the Deputy Jailer Thiru Anbazhagan was attending his interview and censorship duty in the main gate and I am satisfied that he would not have been present during the alleged incident.40. Likewise, Thiru Karuppannan, the jailer was in over all supervising duty and I have no reason to disbelieve him as it was not his duty to present whenever the inmates are sifted toone block to another block. I am satisfied that Thiru. Karuppannan, Jailer was not present at the time of incident. It is also to be noted that the injuries on the head of the detenu could beself-inflicted. "5.2. From the above relevant material documents, the MemberSecretary, Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, culled out the following findings: "42. However, the fact remains that thedetenu had sustained injuries which are simple and grievous in nature, which results into following conclusion:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a) There was an incident of nuisance on the night of 19.4.2007 involving the detenu and others in Cell No.8 of Block II.b) The authorities have decided to separate the detenu and others and lock them up in high security block.c) The detenu and others probably would have resisted such lock up.d) The warders who have handled them had used excess force thereby causing simple and grievous injury to the detenu.e) The detenu has been given proper treatment and is still treated as in-patient at GovernmentGeneral Hospital, Royapettah and his condition isgood.f) The specific overt act could not be fixed as the responsibility for using such excess force to cause such injuries is collective.

"5.3. After going through the above report in detail, wecalled for remarks and recommendations from the AdditionalDirector General of Prisons as to the further course of action in the matter.6. The Additional Director General of Prisons in his proceedings dated 12.9.2007 submitted his remarks and recommendations. The Additional Director General of Prisons, referring to the remarks, findings and observation of the MemberSecretary, Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority in paragraph 38 of his report dated 7.5.2007 that prima facie it is evident that thedetenu had suffered injuries at the hands of the persons who dealt with him on 20.4.2007 between 6.30 a.m. and 7.30 a.m.,observed that as per the report of the Deputy Inspector Generalof Prisons, Chennai Region, the following prison officials are responsible for the injuries sustained by the detenu in their slackness in not preventing the prisoner from dashing against their on rod and accordingly, directed the Superintendent, CentralPrison-II, Puzhal, to initiate disciplinary action against the following persons:1.

Thiru.A.Arumugam, II Grade Warder No.89.2. Thiru.G.Murthy, II Grade Warder No.160 (now working at Sub Jails, Harur).3. Thiru.S.Muthu Laxmanan, II Grade Warder No.197.4. Thiru.L.Jayavel, II Grade Warder No.170.5. Thiru.A.Azhagu Mariselvam, II Grade Warder No.201. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/