The Madras High Court Bench here has directed the State government to pay an interim compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakh to a HIV patient who was wrongly implicated in a criminal case by Dindigul police in 2005 leading to his conviction and incarceration for seven years.
Justice M. Sathyanarayanan ordered the Home Secretary to disburse the compensation amount within four weeks, from the date of receipt of the order copy, since the patient was reported to be in a serious condition and was in need of money for medical as well as incidental expenses.
The judge also directed the Director General of Police to submit a report by June 8 explaining the reasons for having promoted a Sub-Inspector of Police and allowing an Inspector to retire from service though they were allegedly responsible for having implicated the patient wrongly.
According to the patient’s counsel, R. Alagumani, his client Sambandan (name changed) was initially convicted by a Sessions Court in Periyakulam in Theni district on May 24, 2005 on the charge of assaulting his wife with dangerous weapons and lodged in Madurai Central Prison.
He challenged the conviction before the High Court in 2006 and got the sentence suspended. In the meantime, the Dindigul Town West police booked him in another case mistaking him to be the accused wanted in that case and got him sentenced to seven years of imprisonment.
Disposing of a case filed by him against the two police officers, Murugan and R.M. Madhavan, for malicious prosecution, a Sessions Court in Dindigul on April 30, 2013 recommended initiation of criminal action against the officers and directed the petitioner to approach a civil court for compensation.
Thereafter, the two policemen filed individual revision petitions in the High Court and obtained an interim stay on the Sessions Court order which paved the way for their promotion and retirement. On coming to know of it, the HIV patient too filed a revision petition this year seeking compensation.
Pointing out the court had only granted interim stay and not passed final orders, the judge said: “This court is unable to comprehend as to why one petitioner was allowed to retire and another was given promotion.” He posted all three petitions for final hearing in the second week of June.