Madras High Court scoffs at police claim that 63-year-old caused his own head injuries in police custody

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently rejected as “fanciful” the police claim that a 63-year-old man caused his own head injuries while under police custody [AC Karthikeyan Vs SHRC].

A Division Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and R Kalaimathi said that the police version that the man hit his head against a steel bar inside the police vehicle was "fantastic" and anybody could use "common sense" to see through it.

“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 Bench said.

Hence, it dismissed a batch of petitions filed by police challenging the direction of the State Human Rights Commission to grant ₹6 lakh as compensation to the victim-man.

The complainant Selvaraj had sustained head injuries during his arrest in May 2019 in connection with a gutka case.

Selvaraj approached the SHRC alleging that he was summoned and pressured by then Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) AC Karthikeyan in connection with a private civil dispute involving repayment of ₹20 lakh to his nephew. He alleged that when he refused to pay, 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 documents including the accident register, wound certificate and discharge summary established that he had suffered injuries while in police custody.

The police maintained that Selvaraj hit himself against a steel bar inside the police vehicle.

The police also contended that 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.

The SHRC in September 2022 directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department) to pay Selvaraj ₹6 lakh as compensation, with liberty to recover ₹3 lakh from DSP Karthikeyan and ₹1 lakh each from Inspector Senthilkumar and two members of the DSP’s special squad, Mohan Kumar and Stephen Arul Raj.

The police personnel then approached the High Court against the SHRC order.

The Court upheld the SHRC’s decision to fasten liability on then Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) AC Karthikeyan and other officers.

The Bench noted that Selvaraj was a senior citizen aged about 63 years.

On the standard of proof, the Bench clarified:

“We are not dealing with a criminal case. Therefore, the standard of proof can only be preponderance of probabilities.”

On the summons issued to Selvaraj when no case was pending against him, the Court held:

“There was absolutely no justification or warrant for summoning the complainant for enquiry.”

The Bench further concluded:

“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.”

Though CCTV cameras had been installed at Kotticode Police Station, the footage was not produced.

“Non-production of the footage contemporaneously taken warrants drawal of adverse inference against the police,” the Court concluded.

As regards Inspector Senthilkumar, the Bench observed that the Supreme Court's arrest guidelines laid down in the DK Basu judgment were not followed and that Selvaraj should not have been taken to Kotticode Police Station in the manner in which it was done.

“Senthilkumar cannot claim to be innocent. He had acted as a pawn at the hands of the DSP Karthikeyan,” the Court stated.

In view of the above, the High Court confirmed the SHRC’s directions to pay ₹6 lakh compensation to Selvaraj. It also upheld the Commission’s exoneration of one officer whose role was confined to driving the vehicle.

The police personnel were represented by Senior Advocate T Lajapathi Roy with advocate R Rajasekar and G Sailendrababu.

The State Human Rights Commission was represented by V Muthuvelan.

The State was represented by Special Government Pleader S. Shaji Bino.

The Director General of Police was represented by Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Gnanasekaran.

[Read Judgment]