Holywood News

Police Excess: SHRC advises Tamil Nadu government to pay Rs 50,000 in compensation

The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has recommended that the Tamil Nadu government pay a man 50,000 in compensation in case of excess police in the Ariyal area. Under the rules, SHRC member V. Kannadasan also advised the state government to recover the money from police women.

According to the complainant M. Ramalingam, he was a daily fighter and herded goats and owing to a dispute in herding goats, a group assaulted him and his family on January 1, 2018. When they were on an ambulance to the hospital that night, the respondent A. Sargunam, who was then sub-inspector of police attached to Andimadam Police Station, allegedly stopped their ambulance and took him to the Andimadam Police Station.

The complainant said: “In the false complaint of the person who beat him, the defendant registered a case against him and his son in the IPC of Sections 294(b) and 307. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Jayankondam and Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, where he received 30 sutures on his head and fractured his bones.

Despite his complaint, the defendant received no receipts because he received the complaint and deliberately avoided action on his complaint. The defendant colluded with one of the fugitives and committed a false case against the complainant, thus making a request before the SHRC. The defendant denied all allegations in the complaint.

“Considering the oral and recorded evidence and the arguments of both parties,” the SHRC said. The complainant clearly determined that the respondent’s helping the complainant’s opponent did not take appropriate action against his complaint. It said that under Section 307 of the IPC, she had conducted a case against the complainant and her son, the highest part of the law, showing the defendant’s abuse of police power.

“The lawsuits of the respondent constitute a violation of the complainant’s human rights and she did not prove her innocence. She has performed her duties under the law. Therefore, the committee believes that the respondent violated the complainant’s human rights,” the committee said.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button