Colombo, Oct. 24 (Daily Mirror) - The Supreme Court has ruled that the fundamental rights of a police sergeant were violated by three police officers attached to the Meetiyagoda Police Station after he was allegedly assaulted and unlawfully detained in a police cell, ordering two officers to pay him a total of Rs. 200,000 in personal compensation.
The three-judge bench comprising Justices Janak De Silva, Dr Sobhitha Rajakaruna and Menaka Wijesundera held that the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 11 and 13(1) of the Constitution had been infringed.
In her judgement, Justice Menaka Wijesundera observed that the petitioner’s account was supported by medical evidence, affidavits from police officers and complaints made immediately after the incident.
The petitioner, a police sergeant attached to the Baddegama Police Station, had filed the fundamental rights application alleging that he was assaulted at the Meetiyagoda Police Station in December 2011 following a dispute over a house owned by his wife, a former Grama Niladhari.
The house had been rented to a relative of the fourth respondent. According to the petition, the petitioner’s wife had repeatedly requested the tenant to vacate the premises. The fourth respondent had subsequently allegedly entered the petitioner’s residence in his absence and threatened his wife and mother-in-law. When confronted, he had allegedly threatened to kill the petitioner.
Following the incident, the petitioner and his wife lodged a complaint against the fourth respondent at the Meetiyagoda Police Station. The petitioner alleged that an Inspector attached to the station accused him of assaulting the fourth respondent and assaulted him, while two other officers restrained him.
He further alleged that the officers dragged him along the ground, locked him inside a holding cell and assaulted him again. He was later released and received treatment at the Balapitiya Hospital.
The medico-legal report recorded four non-grievous injuries and documented a history of police assault. The Court also noted that affidavits from five police officers corroborated the petitioner’s account, including evidence from an officer who had seen him inside the cell with a laceration on his lip and torn clothing.
The respondents denied the allegations, maintaining that the petitioner and his wife had assaulted the fourth respondent outside the police station. However, Justice Wijesundera observed that they had failed to produce a medico-legal report or other evidence substantiating the alleged injuries sustained by the fourth respondent.