Madras High Court dismisses plea of Veerappan’s relative alleging police torture
Petitioner Sathish Kumar (36), son of Arjunan (since died), who is the husband of Veerapan's sister moved an appeal challenging the order of a single judge refusing to grant compensation.
Madras High Court (File Image)
CHENNAI: Even though the custodial violence is to be viewed seriously, a Constitutional court cannot grant compensation merely on allegations, said the Madras High Court and refused the plea of Veerappan's relative alleging police torture.
Though the Court can understand the feelings of the family members of the litigant, without submitting any relevant documents and evidence we cannot do anything, said a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar.
Petitioner Sathish Kumar (36), son of Arjunan (since died), who is the husband of Veerapan's sister moved an appeal challenging the order of a single judge refusing to grant compensation.
He claimed that the Tamil Nadu government should pay him Rs 20 lakh as compensation for allegedly hiding the truth about his father's death at the hands of police more than two decades ago.
He alleged that the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka governments were responsible for the death of his father during the search operation of Veerapan. Hence, he sought the direction of the court to grant Rs 20 lakh to him as compensation for the agony he suffered, said the litigant.
Advocate P Vijendran on behalf of the litigant submitted that the single judge rejected his plea merely on the ground that the petition was filed belatedly after a lapse of 30 years, without considering the merit of the case.
On September 14, 1995, when the petitioner was 6 years old, Dharmapuri police arrested Arjunan at Pudhunagmarai village, Pennagaram on an alleged case of cattle theft, but he was neither released nor produced before any judicial magistrate, said the petitioner.
Later, in 2015 he came to know that his father had died as the village officer, Natrampalayam issued the death certificate of his father on December 26, 2001, to the Eraiyur police station, but it was not communicated to him, he alleged.
Hence, the litigant raised suspicion over the cause of death of his father and sought compensation from the State.
The division bench refused to grant compensation as the Collector of Krishnagiri couldn't find the veracity of the death certificate.
Further, the bench granted liberty to the litigant to seek relief before a civil court or any competent forum.
