The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on Tuesday recommended the Tamil Nadu government to pay a compensation of ₹50,000 to a man who was assaulted by a Sub-Inspector of Police when the complainant went and questioned why no action was taken on a complaint over a domestic issue.
SHRC member V. Kannadasan also recommended the State government to recover the sum of ₹50,000 from respondent Sub-Inspector of Police C. Sakthi Manikandan, then attached to Jaihindpuram police station in Madurai, as per rules.
Complainant V. Sampathkumar of Anuppanadi in Madurai went to Teppakulam police station in connection with a complaint his relatives had submitted. He had told the police he would have to go to the Commissioner of Police if action was not taken against their complaint.
The same day, the respondent took him to the police station, where he was assaulted and suffered bleeding injuries. After spending three hours and having been forced to sign blank papers, the complainant was informed that a case has been registered under Section 75 of Madras City Police Act.
When the complainant got admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital, the police personnel, who were not in uniform, threatened him to get discharged from the hospital. He later filed a plea with the SHRC.
The respondent denied all the allegations but maintained that based on inputs that three persons caused nuisance to the public, a case was registered under Section 75(2)(a) of TNCP Act. The respondent denied he assaulted the complainant and his brother and caused injuries to them.
Considering the oral and documentary evidence of parties and the written argument of the respondent, the Commission said that it was established that the respondent assaulted the complainant and caused injuries to him. It was proved through the medical documents and photograph.
“It reveals that the respondent behaved in an indecent manner and manhandled the complainant and the same amounts to violation of human rights of the complainant and the respondents had failed to prove his innocence that he had performed his duty in accordance with law,” the Commission said.
It further said the complainant was entitled to receive compensation for the violation of human rights from the respondent and fixing ₹50,000 as compensation would be “fair and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice.”
