V VALLI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT FORT ST GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the wife of Venkatesan received a telegram from the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Puzhal on 31. 01. 2008 informing that her husband Venkatesan who was kept in the prison was admitted to the Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai on 31. 1. 2008 at 1. 00 a. m. for treatment. On the same day, she had received a second telegram stating that her husband who was admitted to the Government Royapettah Hospital expired around 2. 30 a. m. An inquest done by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Personal Assistant (General) to the District Collector, Chennai found that the petitioner's husband who belonged to Adi Dravidar community, was brought to the Government Royapettah Hospital around 1. 50 a. m. , as a dead person. It was noted that on 31. 01. 2008, he developed chest pain. THE jail Doctor recommended his admission to the outside hospital. But the Doctor at Government Royapettah Hospital found that he was brought dead. In the report, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate recorded that the deceased Venkatesan was a Painter by profession and engaged on daily wage basis. Subsequent to his death, the body was handed over to the petitioner. It was buried at Velankadu Burial Ground in New Avadi Road on 03. 02. 2008.

(2.) THE petitioner's husband was accused of the offence under Section 302 IPC. He was tried before the II Additional Sessions Court, Chennai in S. C. No. 259 of 1995 and was convicted with life imprisonment. An appeal filed by the petitioner's husband was rejected by this court in C. A. No. 326 of 1996 on 23. 6. 2004. He was kept initially in the Central Prison at Vellore and on 17. 01. 2007, he was brought to the Central Prison, Puzhal. THE report sent by the Superintendent of Central Prison-I, Puzhal informed the Sub Divisional Magistrate that around 00. 40 hours on 31. 01. 2008, late Venkatesan complained of chest pain and he was given treatment in the jail hospital. But on the request of the jail Doctor, he was taken to the Government Royapettah Hospital through an Ambulance kept in the jail. But the authority at the Government Royapettah Hospital informed that the deceased would have died around 01. 50 a. m. THErefore, he requested the Sub Divisional Magistrate to conduct inquest and sent the report to the State Government. It is pursuant to the same, a report was sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Personal Assistant (General) to the District Collector to the District Collector on 04. 02. 2008 stating that he had conducted an enquiry with the fellow prisoners and the Doctor who gave the first aid and also obtained a report from the Forensic Laboratory. He had observed that the late Venkatesan was hale and healthy and even the parents of the late Venkatesan informed the Executive Magistrate that he must have been tortured by the jail authorities. THEre have been injury marks on his body. In fact, in their monthly visit made, he was found healthy and did not complain any ailment. THEre was also complaint that his left hand was broken and there was also beating mark on the spinal cord. THE Executive Magistrate on observation of the body found that his mouth was slightly open and froth was coming out with a tinge of blood. THEre has been scratch on the right side and also there was an injury on the lower back side near the spinal cord including swelling. On the back side, there was an injury. THEre was also blood clot on the back side of the prisoner.

(3.) THE writ petition when it came up on 03. 03. 2009, notice of motion was ordered. Subsequently, it was admitted on 25. 2. 2010. Pending the writ petition, in her application for interim direction, no orders have been passed. On notice from this court, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit, dated 22. 6. 2009 has been filed. As this court was not satisfied by the order dated 16. 8. 2011, directed the original file to be produced. Accordingly, the original file was produced before this court for perusal.