The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has recommended the Tamil Nadu Government to pay a compensation of ₹50,000 to a man in a case of police excess in Ariyalur district over an incident in January 2018. SHRC member V. Kannadasan also recommended the State Government to recover the sum from the policewoman as per the rules.
According to the complainant M. Ramalingam, he was a daily wager and herded goats and owing to a dispute in herding goats, a group assaulted him and his family on January 1, 2018. When they were on an ambulance to the hospital that night, the respondent A. Sargunam, who was then sub-inspector of police attached to Andimadam Police Station, allegedly stopped their ambulance and took him to the Andimadam Police Station.
“On a false complaint by one of those who assaulted him, the respondent registered a case in under Sections 294(b) & 307 of IPC against him and his son. He was remanded in judicial custody for 25 days,” the complainant said. He was taken to Government Hospital, Jayankondam and Thanjavur Medical College Hospital where received 30 sutures on his head and fractured bones.
Though he gave a complaint, the respondent did not give any receipt for receiving his complaint and deliberately avoided to take action on his complaint. The respondent colluded with one of the assaulters and registered a false case against the complainant and hence the plea before the SHRC. The respondent denied all the allegations in the complaint.
“Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments of both the parties,” the SHRC said that it was categorically established by the complainant that the respondent, to help the rival party of the complainant, had not taken proper action on his complaint. It said that she had registered a case against the complainant and his son under Section 307 of IPC, the highest section of law which showed the abuse of police power by the respondent.
“Therefore, the action on the part of the respondent amounts to violation of human rights of the complainant and she had failed to prove her innocence that she had performed her duty in accordance with law. Therefore, this Commission holds that the respondent had violated the human rights of the complainant,” the Commission said.
Published – April 20, 2025 01:13 pm IST
