The judgment of the Madras High Court in Rajakannu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors is the inspiration behind the movie “Jai Bheem”. Many may not know about the learned judges who delivered this judgment. Justice P.S. Mishra and Justice Shivaraj V Patil adopted inquisitorial system in Habeus Corpus Petition 711 of 1993 and delivered brief yet powerful judgement on 1 January 1994.
Justice Prabha Shankar Mishra was appointed as a Judge of Patna High Court in 1982; was transferred to Madras High Court in 1990; was thereafter appointed as Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1995 and of Calcutta High Court in 1997. A few weeks before retirement, Justice P.S. Mishra submitted his Resignation on July 5, 1998.
After tendering his Resignation from the post of Chief Justice of Cal HC, Justice Mishra told BBC, 3 Judges appointed to SC were all his Junior. He criticized the way Judges were appointed to India’s Highest Court. Justice M.M. Punchhi was the CJI then. It is understood, repeated complaints were made to him.
Journeying through 4 High Courts, Justice Mishra finally donned the robe of a Senior Counsel at SC and lived an honest, hard-working life.
Justice Shivaraj V Patil was elevated as Judge, High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore on 29.3.1990. In April, 1994, was transferred to High Court at Madras and continued as Judge, till 27.12.1998. Was acting Chief Justice of High Court of Madras from 28.12.98 till 19.01.1999. Assumed office as Chief Justice of High Court of Rajasthan on 22.1.1999. Elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of India and assumed office on 15.3.2000. Retired on 11.1.2005.
Both the judges known for their hardwork and unquestionable integrity dealt with the custodial death of Rajakannu.
The judgment (enclosed) narrates the sad state of affairs as to how a daily-wage agricultural labourer was done to death by the Police.
R. Parvathy her husband Rajakannu were daily-wage agricultural labourers having four children. On 20 March 1993, Rajakannu left the house at about 6 A.M. in search of work. At about 12 noon on the said date, Anthonisami, Sub Inspector of Police, Kammapuram Police Station, Vridhachalam Taluk in South Arcot District, and others, came along with five policemen to village. One of the companion constables was Veeraswami. They took Parvathy, her two sons and her brother-in-law in the van in which they had come to the police Station located at a distance of about 20k.m. from their village. She was left in one place and the other three were taken to the other room and without any provocation the police started beating her with a cane all over her body. After finishing beating her, police went and beat her two sons and her brother-in-law. Around 11.00 p.m. the sub inspector left the place and she was given some food by the writer of the police station. She slept in the station itself in the night. Her husband, who came to know about her and her sons and brother-in-law came to the police station around 12 noon on 21.3.1993. The police detained Rajakannu and let Parvathy her sons and her brother-in-law go.
On 22.3.1993 Parvathy returned to the Police station with some food for her husband. To her horror she saw Rajakannu tied to the window bar and was being beaten up on both sides. He was so beaten that he fainted. He could not eat anything and he fell down. When she questioned she was beaten up. After the beating they received at the hands of the police their condition had deteriorated, a homeopathic doctor, who lived near the police station was called and he put some injection and also applied ointment on the wounds of Rajakannu. As soon as the doctor left the place, once again they started beating Rajakannu and dragged him by holding his hair inside the station and dumped him in one corner. Parvathy was forced to leave the station. Even before she could reach her village she was told that her husband had escaped from custody and he was missing.
Parvathy went in search of her husband to the police station and made desperate enquiries from any and every person concerned with her husband’s detention at the police station. Finally when her efforts failed, she also desperately sent telegrams to the Chief Minister of the State and the Chief Justice of High Court of Madras.
The High Court of Madras admitted the petition on 21.4.1993 to hearing. The court ordered the case to be called on 28.4.1993.
The police contended that Rajakannu was missing. Case in Cr. No. 114/93 was registered on the file of Kammapuram Police Station as man missing and the same was being investigated by him. As to the allegations of assault, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vridhachalam, referred the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam R.Krishnamoorthy for enquiry.
The Sub-Inspector contended that 20.3.1993 one Kadirvel Padayachi, son of Ponnusamy Padayachi of Gopalapuram Village filed some complaint with him for an offence of theft. The complainant had alleged that some persons trespassed into his house on the night of 19.3.1993 and committed theft of jewellery of about 43 sovereigns valued at Rs.1,30,000/-. This was registered in Crime No. 107/93 for an offence under Ss.457 and 380, Indian Penal Code. In course of the investigation the enquiry revealed that some persons belonging to the Kurava community residing in another village had come to the complainant’s village on the night of the occurrence. Accordingly he went to Rajakannu’s village to make enquiry. However, he denied the allegation that he assaulted Rajakannu or Parvathy and her sons and the brother-in- law.
The Madras High Court ordered enquiry and B.Perumalswamy, IPS and Inspector General of Police, CB, CID, Madras, took up the investigation. He recorded or got recorded the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution under Section 161 Crl.P.C. and collected or got collected such other materials which he thought were relevant for the prosecution. Enquiry revealed death of Rajakannu. The identification of the dead body and the cause of death, the time of death and other circumstances together with the report submitted before the Court disclosed offences punishable on various counts including under Section 302, I.P.C. and 302 read with Section 34, Sections 218 and 220, Indian Penal Code.
The Hon’ble Judges observed “This case is only one such example where indifference after the complaint was lodged, of the men in power and senior police officers and casual approach of the courts in the proceedings before them like the instant petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, cause severe blow to the truth that it is almost lost. If such people who are involved with the affairs of the police as well as the Courts rise to the occasion and act promptly, real danger to the system and the polity can be avoided. This will also show that while there are some bad men involved in the affairs of the State and hold responsible positions including the position of the Officer in-charge of a police station who are primarily concerned with the maintenance of law and order and required to investigate the cases on information, there are men who can be trusted and they can deliver the goods.”
Ultimately the court passed the following order:
(i) We accordingly order that the Government shall award a compensation in a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ten thousand only) to the petitioner and pay in cash to her a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and invest the remaining Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) on her behalf in some safe scheme without any risk to deliver to her a monthly income of not less than Rs.1,000/-. Besides the monetary compensation, the State shall forthwith recognize the tenancy of the petitioner and accordingly issue necessary orders of assignment.
(ii) The Government shall invest a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand), in addition to the above, in the name of the minor daughter of the petitioner, viz., Chinnaponnu, which money the petitioner shall not be entitled to withdraw and no interest on that deposit shall be paid either to the petitioner or to anyone else. The said money of Rs.25,000/- together with the accrued interest shall be delivered to the petitioner’s minor daughter Chinnaponnu only when she would attain majority and when she is married.
(iii) A separate monetary compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) shall be paid by the Government to Achi, the other victim woman, who has suffered assault badly at the hands of the fourth respondent and his men; Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to Kullan, stepson of Achi and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each to Ravi, Mariappan, Rathinam, Govindarajan and Kolanchi, who in the course of the investigation have been found to have suffered at the hands of the fourth respondent and his men. We are informed that Ravi, son of the petitioner R.Parvathi, is a minor and Kolanchi, son of Achi, is also a minor. It is obvious that any compensation paid to them will be received on their behalf by their guardians only. It will be proper, in our opinion, in such a situation to order that Rs.10,000/- awarded to Ravi and Rs.10,000/-to Kolanchi by way of compensation shall be invested by the State in their favour in such a way that on attaining majority they receive the amount of compensation with interest thereon.
(iv) The investments for the purposes as above must be done within a week of the receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) All proceedings in connection with the assignment of the land to the petitioner R.Parvathi as directed above, should be completed within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(vi) It will be open to the Government of the State to realise and recover the amount of compensation from the fourth respondent herein or any of the accused persons in the case in the event of trial in court in accordance with law.
The Hon’ble Judges of the Madras High Court not only upheld the rule of law, but also exhibited empathy beyond the call of duty. Over the years, reforms in criminal investigations are brought because of similar judicial decisions. The judgment in Rajakannu vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors however stands a classic example of Court’s prompt intervention to secure justice to the victims of police brutality.
S.Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 