ඉබ්බාගමුවේ ලෙස්ලි අයන්වර්ක්ස් හි මනෝජ් තෑලිස් මහතාට - 2005.09.24 දින අත්අඩංගුවට ගත් ඉහත පොලිස් කාරයින් ඔහුට වධ දෙන ලදි. ඒ ගුද මාර්ගයේ එස් ලොන් බට යවමින්ය.
ඔහු මෙම වධ දීමට එරෙහිව, පොලිස්පති හා නීතිපති වෙත පැමිණිලි කළ අතර, මූලික අයිතිවාසිකම් පෙත්සමක් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය හමුවේ පවරන ලදි.
ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය මෙම නඩුව, 2017.06.02 වන දින විභාගයට ගෙන, එදිනම තීන්දුව ප‍්‍රකාශයට පත් කළේය.
නඩුව විභාගයට ගන්නා අවස්ථාව වන විට, විශේෂ පොලිස් විමර්ශණ එ්කය (SIU) විසින් මෙම පස්දෙනාට විරුද්ධව, වධහිංසා පනත යටතේ කුරුණෑගල මහාධිකරණයේ නඩු පවරන ලද අතර, ඔවුන් වැරදිකරුවන් කර තිබින.
එ් අනුව රු: 1500/= බැගින් රජයේ ගාස්තුවක් ගෙවීමට සිදුවිය. වසර 5කට අත්හිටුවන ලද, වසර 2 බන්දනාගාරගත කිරීමකටද යටත් විය. එයට අමතරව රු: 15,000/= කට වන්දියක් ගෙවීමටද සිදු විය.
මෙම පසුබිම යටතේ, ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ නඩුවේ, මෙම පොලිස් කාරයින් වෙනුවෙන් කරුණු නොදක්වන බවට ඔවුන්ගේ නීතිඥවරයා අධීකරණයට දැනුම් දීමද විශේෂයකි.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST
REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the emocratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
SC(FR) No. 430/2005
H.A. Manoj Talis,
Lesley Iron Works,
Udawela,
Ibbagamuwa.
Petitioner
Vs
1) Inspector Hiriyadeniya,
Officer in Charge,
Crimes Branch,
Police Station,
Gokarella.
2) Sub-Inspector Nayanananda,
Police Station,
Gokarella.
3) Sub Inspector Ellepola,
Police Station, Gokarella.
4) Sergeant Hemachandra
Police Station,
Gokarella.
5) Police Constable Ratnasiri,
Police Station,
Gokarella.
6) Reserve Police Constable Ajith,
Police Station,
Gokarella.
7) Officer-in Charge,
Police Station,
Gokarella.
8) Inspector General of Police,
Police Headquarters,
Colombo 01.
9) Hon. Attorney General,
Attorney General's Department,
Colombo 12.
Respondents
Before:
Sisira J. de Abrew, J
Upaly Abeyrathne, J &
Nalin Perera, J
Counsel:
Shyamal A. Collure with
A.P.Jayaweera for the Petitioner.
Uditha Egalahewa PC with Vishwa Vimukthi for the
1 st ,2nd,3rd,5th and 6th
Respondents.
Ms. Nayomi Wickramasekera SSC for the 7th to 9th
Respondents.
Argued &
Decided on:
:
02.06.2017
Sisira J.de Abrew, J
Heard counsel for both parties in support of their respective cases. The Petitioner complains that the 1
st to 6th Respondents came to his house on 24.09.2005 around 9.15. p.m. and arrested the Petitioner. Thereafter the Petitioner was taken to Gokarella Police Station. The Petitioner complains that the 3rd
Respondent slapped him, the 2nd Respondent gave a blow to his ear and
the 1st Respondent hit him on his face inside the Police Station. This assault according to the Petitioner has taken place in a room of the Police Station. After the said assault, the Petitioner was removed from the said room to another room. In the 2nd room the 1st to 6th Respondents have asked him to kneel down. His hands were tied by some of the Respondents. When the Petitioner was squatting, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents brought an iron bar and passed the said iron bar
between his hands and legs. This has been done according to the Petitioner by the 1st to 3rd
Respondents. While the said act was being performed by the 1st to 3rd Respondents, the 5th
and 6th Respondents too were inside this room. Thereafter a S Lon pipe was sent through the Petitioner’s rectum and the Respondents assaulted the Petitioner. The Petitioner complains that when he was arrested, the Police Officers did not give him any reason for his arrest. The Respondents have
filed objections to this application . When we peruse the objections, and the petition of the Petitioner, we are unable to conclude that the Respondents have given sufficient reasons for the arrest of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was later examined by the Judicial Medical Officer and the report of the Judicial Medical Officer dated 30.11.2009 supports the allegations levelled by the Petitioner
against the Respondents. According to the Consultant Judicial Medical Officer, the history of torture was present in the body of the Petitioner.
When we examine the medical reports marked as P1, P2 and P10, there is evidence to suggest that the Petitioner has suffered a rupture in his ear drum. On a complaint made by the Petitioner to the OIC Gokarella ( the 7th Respondent), against the Police Officers, Police conducted investigation against the 1st to 6th Respondents. After investigation, the Hon. A.G filed an indictment against the 1st,
2nd,3rd, 5th and 6th Respondents for offences alleged to have been committed under Act No. 22 of 1994. The learned High Court Judge after trial convicted the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th Respondents and sentenced them to pay a crown costs amounting to Rs.1500/- and 02 years Rigorous Imprisonment suspended for 05 years. In addition to the said punishment each Respondent was ordered to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation to the Petitioner.
Learned President's Counsel appearing for the 1st to 6th Respondents submits that he does not resist the application of the Petitioner as the Respondents have been convicted by the High Court. However we note that there is no sufficient evidence against the 4th Respondent to find him guilty for the alle
ged violation of Articles 11,12(1),13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution. Learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner too does not press the case against the 4th Respondent. As I pointed out earlier, the Police Officers who arrested the Petitioner have failed to give reasons for his arrest. Considering the aforementioned matters, we hold that the 1st,2nd,3rd,5th and 6th Respondents have violated the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed by Article 13(1) of the Constitution and further hold that the arrest of the Petitioner was illegal. If the arrest of the Petitioner was illegal, the detention of the Petitioner by the Police Officers inside the Police Station too becomes illegal. Considering all the above matters, we hold that the 1st, 2nd ,3rd,5th and 6th Respondents have violated the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed by Articles 11, 12(1),13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution.
We therefore order each of the above Respondent ( 1st, 2nd,3rd,5th and 6th Respondents) to pay a sum of Rs. 100,000/- to the Petitioner as compensation. For the purpose of clarity, we state here that each Respondent abovenamed ( 1st, 2nd ,3rd,5th and 6th) should pay Rs. 100,000/- to the Petitioner as compensation.
When we consider the facts of this case we are unable to find the 4th Respondent guilty of violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed by the Constitution. The 1st,2nd,3th,5th and 6
th Respondents are directed to pay the said compensation to the Petitioner within 03 months from today.
The Registrar of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the 8th and 9th Respondents. We do not make any order against the State to pay compensation.
JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT
Upaly Abeyrathne, J
I agree.
JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT
Nalin Perera, J
I agree.
JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT
-
No comments:
Post a Comment