Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007
ePaper
Google



Tamil Nadu
News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |


ICICI Bank

Tamil Nadu Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Commission directs four police personnel to pay compensation

K.T. Sangameswaran

CHENNAI: The State Human Rights Commission has recommended that four police personnel, including an Inspector, who tortured a person to extract a statement without verifying facts, should pay Rs.25,000 in compensation to the victim.

Commission Members Justice S. Thangaraj and K. Mariappan said the Tamil Nadu Government should pay the sum to the complainant and recover it from the salaries of R. Rajaram, the then Inspector, R.S.Mangalam police station; Thenkarai Maharaja and Naganathan, Head Constables; and Muthuramalingam, constable.

S. Nizam of Krishnarajapuram, Devakottai, lodged a complaint with the Commission that on July 21, 2003, he was taken in a jeep with the hands and legs tied. Four policemen beat him up and questioned him on how he had acquired property disproportionate to his income.

He told them he had sold his share of an ancestral property to a jewellery shop owner at R.S. Mangalam and acquired the immovable property paying Rs.50,000 in advance. He was taken to the Travellers’ Bungalow and the seashore at Thondi and tortured. After inquiries with the jewellery shop owner, the police let him go. The Commission’s investigation wing found the allegations true.

The officials claimed they were members of a special team formed to investigate a case and, on suspicion, brought the complainant to the station. After verifying his statement, he was freed. They denied he was tortured.

The Bench said doctor’s evidence had confirmed that the complainant had body pain. His 10-day treatment at Government Hospital, Devakottai, could not be disregarded. The police ought to have examined the source of the complainant’s wealth.

After committing human rights violation, they made inquiries with the jewellery shop owner. The respondents did not follow Section 160 of the Cr.P.C (police officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses).

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail



Tamil Nadu

News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |



News Update



The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu