SHRC recommends compensation of ₹1 lakh in a case of police excess in Tirunelveli

It also seeks disciplinary proceedings against the police inspector

October 03, 2022 06:24 pm | Updated 06:24 pm IST - CHENNAI

The State Human Rights Commission on Monday recommended the government to pay a compensation of ₹1 lakh to a complainant in a case of police excess in Tirunelveli district.

SHRC member D. Jayachandran also recommended the government to recover the sum from Inspector of Police S. Velkani attached to Tirunelveli town police station and sought disciplinary proceedings against her.

According to Mohamed Kaniammal, wife of Althaf Hussain of Vazhukku Odai, she had a dispute with a neighbour over the construction of a compound wall between their houses and installation of a CCTV camera.

When she installed a CCTV camera in her house, the neighbour objected following which the inspector "forcefully removed" it. A complaint was lodged with Deputy Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli. He had permitted her to reinstall the CCTV camera.

Meanwhile, Mr. Hussain sent a complaint alleging that the policewoman was acting in favour of their neighbour.

On December 21, 2019, the inspector, along with other policemen “trespassed into the complainant’s house” and used abusive language and further assaulted her, the complainant alleged.

She was produced before a Judicial Magistrate and after she was let on bail, she was admitted in the government hospital. The respondent denied all the allegations against her and contended the complainant had spread defamatory comments against her in social media.

After hearing both sides, the SHRC observed: "Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments of both the parties, this Commission is of the considered view that the allegation against the 1st respondent (Inspector of Police) was categorically proved by the complainant" about the incident.

The 1st respondent had failed to follow the procedures laid down in law in arresting the complainant and hence had violated human rights of the complainant and also the guidelines issued by the NHRC and SHRC and the judgment of the Supreme Court, it observed.

As for other respondents in the case, it emerged that they were doing official or personal work and were not involved in the incident.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.