Rs 10 lakh compensation in custodial death case

CHENNAI: In 2000, personnel at the Manapparai police station claimed that Ramamurthi (32) committed suicide there. The RDO inquiry, medical officer’s report and the post-mortem report also vouched for the same.The CB-CID, to which the case was referred, also held that Ramamurthi had committed suicide. However, based on the findings of the TN State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), the Madras High Court held that the youth was done to death at the hands of three personnel attached to the police station and ordered a grant of `10 lakh to Ramamurthi’s family members, as compensation.The government should pay the amount to the father, wife and two minor children within eight weeks and recover the same from the three cops, Justice KK Sasidharan said. The judge was allowing a writ petition from S Muthu, his daughter-in-law M Mallika and minor grandsons M Sathiya and M Gopal. Ramamurthi was taken to the police station on February 25, 2000. Later, his family members were told that he had committed suicide. Suspecting foul play, the local people staged an agitation infront of the police station and the cops resorted to firing, in which one person was killed and others injuried.The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking compensation. Disposing of the same, the High Court in September 2003, directed the SHRC to hold an inquiry. Holding that Ramamurthi died under suspicious circumstances, the SH-RC recommended the case to the CB-CID. Earlier, the local RDO, who held an inquest, said in his report tha tit was a case of suicide. The doctor’s report and the post-mortem report also said the same thing. The CB-CID also submitted that itwas a clear case of suicide.However, the evidence collected by the SHRC was sufficient to conclude that the youth was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the three cops, resulting in his death, the HC said. The available materials clearly proved the role played by the three cops in actively particpating in the torture of Ramamuthi and as such,the State, being the employer, was vicariously liable to pay compensation, the judge said.