THE JAI BHEEM CASE* *RAJAKANNU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU* H.C.P. No. 711 of 1993 *Facts of the Case:* The Habeas Corpus petition had been filed by R. Parvathy, the wife of Rajakannu. They were daily-wage agricultural labourers with 4 children. On 20.03.1993, the 4th Respondent Police took R

*

Sekarreporter

THE JAI BHEEM CASE*

*RAJAKANNU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU*
H.C.P. No. 711 of 1993

*Facts of the Case:*
The Habeas Corpus petition had been filed by R. Parvathy, the wife of Rajakannu. They were daily-wage agricultural labourers with 4 children. On 20.03.1993, the 4th Respondent Police took R. Parvathy, her 2 sons and her brother-in-law and allegedly beat them at the police station. Rajakannu was taken into custody and the others were released on 21.03.1993. On 22.03.1993, the Petitioner wife saw her husband tied to the window bars and getting severely beaten. On questioning the same, she was beaten up as well. Due to the wounds sustained by them and their health deteriorating resultantly, a homeopathic doctor was called to treat them. Once the doctor left, they were again beaten up. Later, the Petitioner wife was forced to leave the police station. Before she even reached her village, the police had already reached the village and said that the husband had escaped custody and was missing. Subsequently, the Petitioner wife made several enquiries and had also sent telegrams to the CM and the Chief Justice of Madras. The Petitioner wife alleged that the Respondent police had killed her husband and had disposed of the body clandestinely and had registered a missing persons case and false statements were prepared. Based on the same, the Court admitted the Petition on 21.04.1993.

The Respondent police provided their own version of events as follows: On 20.03.1993, one Kadirvel Padayachi of another village filed a complaint for a theft, alleging that 43 sovereigns of gold valued at Rs. 1,30,000/- was stolen on 19.03.1993. It was found that some people belonging to the Petitioner’s village had come to the complainant’s village. Based on the same, the Respondent police proceeded to the Petitioner’s village to make enquiry, in particular, about the petitioner’s husband. On 21.03.1993, the Petitioner’s husband was found and questioned. He was thereafter taken to various places such as Neyveli, Didirkuppam etc. On 20.03.1993, they met the Petitioner and based on some information given by her, brought the Petitioner’s husband to the police station. The Petitioner’s husband had been asked to sleep and stay in the thatched shed, opposite to the police station. However, that night itself, he had disappeared. Despite intensive search, he had not been found even until 01.04.1993.

*Findings:*
Independent investigation was directed by the High Court and was conducted by the CBCID based on a comprehensive affidavit filed by the Petitioner. It was found that in a case in another police station, 40km away from the Respondent Police’s Station, the photos of the dead body in that case were identified as the Petitioner’s husband by the witnesses.

Referring to _Padmini vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(1993 WLR 798)],_ the Court allowed for the Petitioner to be given opportunity to be heard at each stage of the proceeding.

On the issue of compensation, the Petitioner had claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and the Hon’ble Court, citing _Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa [AIR 1993 SC 960],_ stated that in the case of custodial death, the Court has an obligation to grant the relief and defence of sovereign immunity is not available to the State Agency. As such, the Hon’ble Court directed the Government to provide a compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- of which, Rs. 10,000/- was to be given in the form of cash and the remaining Rs. 1,00,000/- to be invested in a safe scheme which delivers a monthly income of not less than Rs. 1,000/-. Further investments and were also made in the name of the minor daughter of the Petitioner as well as to other victims who had suffered assault by the Respondent police. In finality, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to the counsel for the Petitioner.

_“The truth is an element which is never destroyed. A proceeding may be lost but the truth will always triumph.”_