K. NANJUNDEGOWDA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS on 20.12.2011, the 1st petitioner was the Police Inspector and the 2nd petitioner was the Sub -Inspector of Police at Sampigehalli Police Station, Bangalore. A case in Crime No. 209/2011, under S. 384 of IPC was registered at 11.00 a.m., on 20.12.2011, by the 2nd petitioner, on the complaint of one Karthik, son of Gopalkrishna, alleging stealing of his personal belongings by four unknown persons, near Petrol Bunk, on 80 feet road, Shivarama Karanth Nagar, Bangalore and the investigation revealing the complicity of the 3rd respondent, along with three others. The 1st respondent having received a phone call at 12.00 noon, on 20th December 2011, from the public, stating that 16 years old boy was rounded up and kept in Sampigehalli Police Station from the evening of 17th December 2011, a team from the 1st respondent Commission reached Sampigehalli Police Station at about 3.00 p.m., and found the 3rd respondent seated on a blanket and handcuffed with a leading chain attached to the bars of a window. His version was that, he having been picked up by the Police on 17.12.2011 at 9.30 p.m., on the road near his home at Sadiq Layout, Thanisandra and was subjected to torture by the Police. Father of the 3rd respondent submitted a written complaint along with the school transfer certificate of the 3rd respondent, which showed his date of birth as 10.01.1996. Photograph of the 3rd respondent, while he was in custody at Sampigehalli Police Station was taken. The 3rd respondent was later on produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and having been referred to remand home, was lodged therein. He was produced before a Medical Officer on 21.12.2011.

(2.) THE 1st respondent passed an interim order on 21.12.2011 in the matter of assault committed on the 3rd respondent at Sampigehalli Police Station and recommended to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, to initiate departmental enquiry for illegal detention and atrocity committed on the 3rd respondent at Sampigehalli Police Station and to immediately suspend the SHO, until the enquiry is completed and to submit a report by the Commissioner of Police about action taken. The 2nd respondent immediately conducted an enquiry, pursuant to the complaint of father of the 3rd respondent, alleging police excesses on the 3rd respondent during his custody at Sampigehalli Police Station. The 2nd respondent submitted a report, stating that the allegations of police excesses are unfounded and that the Sampigehalli Police have not committed any illegality.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 have filed separate statement of objections to the writ petition and the petitioners have filed their re -joinder statement. The 4th respondent was impleaded, pursuant to an order passed on 14.12.2013.