The Madras high court has dismissed a petition from three police constables challenging the order of the state government to recover from them the compensation amount awarded to the family of a person who died while in police custody in the city in June 1993.
Wilson, a resident of Royapettah, was taken into custody by the police attached to the Royapettah police station on June 21, 1993, on a complaint by the crew of Pallavan Transport Express Wing.
He was allegedly beaten with rods and iron pipes in the street and in the police station and died on June 22, 1993, while in police custody. The state government accepted the report of the district collector and granted ex-gratia payment of `50,000 to his family. On a petition from Wilson’s mother Meena, the Madras high court had on March 4, 2004, awarded compensation of `4.30 lakh.
After making the payment, the government had issued the impugned order directing the DGP to recover the amount from the five policemen responsible for Wilson’s death.
The petitioners, S. Ganesan, M. Nagarajan and N. Chandran, contended that they were acquitted both in the criminal court and in the departmental proceedings. Therefore, there was no case for recovering the amount.
The state had also defended the petitioners before this court by stating that no such incident had taken place and now they cannot turn back and hold the petitioners guilty to help them recover the money, they said.
Justice K. Chandru said that the petitioners were before this court when the petition was filed by Meena and also when the court directed the state to recover the amount from the petitioners.
Nothing prevented the petitioners from filing an appeal to challenge the findings rendered by this court and the direction to recover the money from the policemen.
Having allowed the order to become final, it was not open to them to turn back and question the consequential order passed by the state.
He also said that they were let off in disciplinary proceedings or acquitted by the criminal court was not a ground to deny compensation and that the state defended the petitioners in the writ proceedings was not a ground to contend.
The state had defended them in the writ proceedings, but subsequent to the loss of the case, it had decided not to go on appeal. In view of the direction issued by this court, the state was bound to implement the order, the judge said.