Supreme Court holds two Policemen responsible for a crime against humanity.
There is no order against the State since the two Policemen are in the dock.
The Supreme Court has awarded one million rupees against the two Policemen attached to the Circuit Crime Investigation Division of Anuradhapura as compensation for the injuries that an individual sustained as a result of torture and arresting him illegally and mistakenly over the theft of a motor bicycle.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that police officers are bound to treat every person with dignity and respect.
Supreme Court Justice S. Thurairaja observed that Police officers are expected to extend common courtesies at all times when dealing with the public.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that police officers, being state officers tasked with law enforcement and the maintenance of law and order, have an utmost responsibility in respecting, safeguarding and advancing these rights, the Supreme Court held.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court further observed that the Supreme Court does not hold the State responsible for the alleged violations of Fundamental Rights of the applicant.
The decision is because Police Sergeant Wijesinghe and Police Constable Wanninayakeface charges before the Anuradhapura High Court for violation of Section 2(4) of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act No. 22 Of 1994.
The applicant Gurusinghe Senevirathnage Tharindu Priyan Akalanka, a resident of Mihintale, was arrested on 20th September 2017 by a team of police officers attached to the Circuit Crime Investigation Division, Anuradhapura and was detained in the police custody for four days.
During that period, the Petitioner states that he was subjected to torture, inhuman treatment, which included the victim being handcuffed, and hung with a rope on a teak tree.
Upon the applicant being released by the Circuit Crime Investigation Unit of Anuradhapura, he got admitted to the Anuradhapura Teaching Hospital for medical treatment. The applicant received treatment and was discharged, from the hospital after 12 days. The actual suspect had been arrested later using CCTV footage.
Contrary to the above position, the Respondents submit that the applicant received injuries during the arrest when the applicant had struggled and tried to flee, whereupon, he injured himself by running into a fence.
Justice Thurairaja stated that the MLR report and reports issued by the Neurophysiology Unit submitted to the Supreme Court establish and supports the position taken by the applicant and not that of the Respondents in this matter.
The Supreme Court further held that the applicant’s, recounting of the incidents is corroborated by the affidavits of his parents and the medical reports. The court further observed that the respondents have failed to provide an adequate explanation as to how the petitioner received such injuries on his neck, hands and the upper limbs of the body.
The MLR strongly corroborates, the fact that the Petitioner was hung for a considerable period, as there were injuries on the upper part of the body including the neck.
The Supreme Court three-judge-bench comprising Justice Vijith Malalgoda, Justice S. Thurairaja and Justice Mahinda Samayawardena declared that two policemen have violated the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 11, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution.
The applicant states that on 20th September 2017, a group of men entered his residence in a disruptive and disorderly manner while the applicant was asleep.
The applicant alleges that he was apprehended and manacled without the production of a reason for the arrest.
The applicant states that he was mercilessly assaulted while being transported from the applicant’s residence to the Circuit Crime Investigation Unit of Anuradhapura and interrogated by the Respondents on whether the Petitioner had been involved in the theft of a motor bicycle. The applicant states that he provided them with the details of one Chanaka Sanoj Akalanka in Mihinthale since the applicant believed that the respondents were labouring under the misapprehension as to the applicant’s complicity in the theft of a motor bicycle.
The applicant, further states that the applicant was coerced into conducting himself in such a fashion due to relentless physical assault on him by the respondents.
The applicant states that the above said Chanaka Sanoj Akalanka was taken into custody upon his statement.
The applicant asserted that said Chanaka Sanoj Akalanka had not been complicit in the purported theft of the motor bicycle.
Soon after the respondents, proceeded to assault the applicant ruthlessly until almost the applicant collapsed in agony.
The applicant also states that he was handcuffed and taken to Thisa Wewa along with aforesaid Chanaka Sanoj Akalanka and two others.
They were Silva and Suranga.
