The Madras High Court rejected the police claim that a 63-year-old man injured himself inside a police vehicle, calling the explanation “fantastic.” The Court upheld Rs 6 lakh compensation ordered by the State Human Rights Commission for custodial assault.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has strongly criticised the police version in a custodial injury case and dismissed their challenge to a compensation order passed by the State Human Rights Commission. The Court described the explanation given by the police as “fanciful” and based on a story that could not stand the test of common sense.
The case, titled AC Karthikeyan Vs SHRC, was heard by a Division Bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi. The Bench was dealing with petitions filed by police officials who had challenged the SHRC’s order directing payment of Rs 6 lakh compensation to a 63-year-old man, Selvaraj, who suffered head injuries while in police custody.
ALSO READ: Madras HC Orders CB-CID Probe, Appoints Judge in Sivaganga Custodial Death Case
Selvaraj had sustained injuries during his arrest in May 2019 in connection with a gutka-related case. He later approached the Human Rights Commission claiming that he was illegally summoned and assaulted by police officers at the instance of then Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) AC Karthikeyan.
According to Selvaraj, the dispute was actually related to a private civil matter involving repayment of Rs 20 lakh to his nephew. He alleged that when he refused to pay the amount, members of the DSP’s special squad forcibly picked him up from his premises, assaulted him, detained him at Kotticode Police Station and threatened to implicate him in false cases.
Medical records, including the accident register, wound certificate and discharge summary, clearly showed that Selvaraj suffered head injuries while he was in police custody. However, the police claimed that he had caused the injuries himself by hitting his head against a steel bar inside the police vehicle.
Rejecting this explanation, the High Court observed that such a claim was unbelievable. The Bench stated,
“We can invoke the rule of common sense and easily conclude that the story that the complainant hit himself and that is how the head injuries were caused is fantastic.”
The Court emphasised that the victim was a senior citizen aged about 63 years, making the police version even more doubtful. The police had also argued that a case had been registered under Section 24(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 after a gutka seizure from a godown allegedly belonging to Selvaraj. However, the Court carefully examined the facts and found serious lapses in the conduct of the officers.
The SHRC, in its order passed in September 2022, had directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department) to pay Rs 6 lakh as compensation to Selvaraj. It further granted liberty to the government to recover Rs 3 lakh from DSP Karthikeyan and Rs 1 lakh each from Inspector Senthilkumar and two members of the special squad, Mohan Kumar and Stephen Arul Raj.
When the matter came before the High Court, the Bench clarified the standard of proof applicable in such proceedings. It observed,
“We are not dealing with a criminal case. Therefore, the standard of proof can only be preponderance of probabilities.”
The Court also found that there was no justification for summoning Selvaraj when no case was pending against him at that time. On this point, the Bench clearly held,
“There was absolutely no justification or warrant for summoning the complainant for enquiry.”
After analysing the materials on record, the Bench came to the conclusion that the entire action appeared to have been carried out under the instructions of DSP Karthikeyan. The Court said, “We are of the view that only on account of instructions given by Karthikeyan, the police personnel attached to Marthandam police station implicated the complainant.”
Another important aspect considered by the Court was the non-production of CCTV footage from Kotticode Police Station. Although CCTV cameras had been installed, the footage was not produced before the authorities. The Court drew an adverse inference against the police for this failure, observing,
“Non-production of the footage contemporaneously taken warrants drawal of adverse inference against the police.”
With respect to Inspector Senthilkumar, the Bench noted that the arrest guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal were not followed. The Court held that Selvaraj should not have been taken to Kotticode Police Station in the manner in which it was done. Criticising the Inspector’s role, the Bench remarked,
“Senthilkumar cannot claim to be innocent. He had acted as a pawn at the hands of the DSP Karthikeyan.”
In light of these findings, the High Court upheld the SHRC’s decision and confirmed the direction to pay Rs 6 lakh compensation to Selvaraj. It also upheld the Commission’s decision to exonerate one officer whose role was limited to driving the police vehicle.
The judgment reinforces the principle that custodial violence and misuse of police power will not be tolerated and that courts can rely on common sense and probability in human rights cases. By rejecting what it called a “fantastic” explanation, the Madras High Court has once again underlined the importance of accountability, transparency and adherence to constitutional safeguards in matters involving police custody and personal liberty.
Case Title:
AC Karthikeyan Vs SHRC
Click Here to Read More Reports on Custodial Injury
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
