The petitioner who was 59 years old, was a “broker* by profession. He has averred that on 27.05.1996, the 1st respondent with some other police officers attached to the Police Station, Wellawatte, took him into custody while he was travelling from Panadura to Colombo. The petitioner alleges that he was taken to the Police Station and was assaulted by the 1st respondent at the instigation of the 2nd respondent. The allegation is that the petitioner was assaulted with sand filled S-lon pipes and he thereby sustained injuries to his head,…
Read MoreTag: important judgements
PRIYANKARA v. PC SISIRA KUMARA, POLICE STATION, PUTTALAM AND OTHERS SC APPLICATION NO 214/96 (SPL.)
The petitioner was travelling in a Puttalam bound bus when a passenger boarded the bus with a lighted cigarette. When the conductor of the bus attempted to stop the smoking, the passenger retaliated by using obscene language. At that stage the petitioner intervened. Then also the passenger retaliated by using obscene language. When the bus reached the Puttalam bus stand the passenger challenged the petitioner. The petitioner attempted to escape but the passenger assaulted the petitioner repeatedly. Thereafter, the petitioner visited the Puttalam Police Station and complained to the OIC,…
Read MoreNALIKA KUMUDINI, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, (ON BEHALF OF MALSHA KUMARI) v. NIHAL MAHINDA, O.I.C. HUNGAMA POLICE AND OTHERS S.C. APPLICATION (F.R.) NO. 615/95
Malsha Kumari a 14 year old girl was arrested at her house by police officers of the Hungama Police Station. She was questioned about the theft of a gold chain and assaulted by Police Officers both at the time of her arrest and at the Police Station. The 1st respondent, officer- in-charge of the Police Station, assaulted her with a hose-pipe and trampled her. Thereafter her hands were tied behind her back and she was hung on a tree with a rope. While she remained hung the 1st respondent beat…
Read MoreABASIN BANDA v. S. I. GUNARATNE & OTHERS S.C. APPLICATION NO. 109/95.
The Petitioner alleges that he was arrested at about 6 p.m. on 1, March 1995, for no reason. He was taken to the Hanguranketha Police Station where the 1st Respondent assaulted him with a piece of wood. He was produced before the Magistrate in the morning of 2, March, 1995. The Petitioner states that he was waiting for a bus at the Rikillagaskada junction to go home, after selling cloth. Then the 1st respondent arrived in a jeep with two Police Constables and arrested him. The petitioner was not informed…
Read MoreLUCAS APPUHAMY v. MATURATA AND OTHERS S.C. APPLICATION NO. 87/94.
Where there were sufficient grounds for suspecting that a cognizable offence had been committed by the petitioner, his arrest without a warrant was in accordance with procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore not in violation of Article 13(1) of the Constitution. Where the medical evidence of the injuries found on the petitioner was consistent with the version of the Police that they had been sustained in the process of the use of reasonable force in making the arrest, it cannot be said that a violation of…
Read MoreKODITUWAKKUGE NIHAL POLICE SERGEANT KOTALAWALA AND OTHERS SC APPLICATION NO. 1 2 6 /9 4
The Is’ to the 10th respondents were police officers attached to the Police Guard Room, Boralesgam uw a w hich com es u n d er the M aharagam a Police Station. On 04. 03. 1994, the petitioner w as arrested by the 1st and 2nd respondents for a traffic offence and taken to the Police G uard Room, Boralesgam uwa after using m uch force on him. W hilst in police custody, the 1st, 2nd, 4lh and 5th respondents assau lted him. He was assau lted with a rubber…
Read MoreSHANTHI CHANDRASEKERAM v. D. B. WIJETUNGA AND OTHERS, the judgement was for three habeas corpus applications by supreme court. S.C. 1/92. 2192, 3/92
SHANTHI CHANDRASEKERAM v. D. B. WIJETUNGA AND OTHERS, the judgement was for three habeas corpus applications by supreme court. Fundamental Rights – Reference to the Supreme Court by Court of Appeal on the ground that was prima facie of infringement of Articles 11, 13(1) and 13(2) in three habeas corpus applications – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in matters of infringement of fundamental rights. the judgement was the petition granted and I grant the Petitioner in each case a declaration that the detenu had been arrested in violation of Article 13(1),…
Read MoreCHANNA PIERIS AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS, the Ratawesi Peramuna Case and judgement was given by supreme court. SC APPLICATIONS NO. 146/92 TO 154/92 AND 155/92 (SEVEN APPLICATIONS)
The ten applications were by consent considered together. The applicants in the ten applications were granted leave to proceed for the alleged infringements of their rights guaranteed by Articles. The petitioners were participants in a “movement” called the Ratawesi Peramuna formed in November 1991 under the leadership of Atureliya Rathana and patali champika ranawaka. the disruption in January 1992 of the exhibition of posters in Matara and the resurgence of the JVP were discussed after which a manifesto was introduced by Champika Ranawake the petitioner in Application No. 154/92. There…
Read MoreJAYASINGHE vs SAMARAWICKREMA AND OTHERS S.C. APPLICATION NO. 157/91
The petitioner was arrested on 23.07.91 (though Police gave the date as 06.06.91) and taken to the Eheliyagoda Police Station, and questioned about suspected links there until 07.08.91, when he was taken to the Deraniyagala Police Station where he was tortured. The petitioner had disappeared after 23.07.91. On learning he was at Eheliyagoda Police Station the petitioner’s mother and father had visited him daily at the Police Station, Eheliyagoda between 26.07.81 and 07.08.91 and there he had not been assaulted. On 29.07.91 the petitioner’s mother had complained to the International…
Read MoreRATNASIRI AND ANOTHER v. DEVASURENDRAN, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SLAVE ISLAND AND OTHERS S.C. APPLICATION NO. 4/91 WITH S.C. APPLICATION NO. 3/91
The Incidents of assault and Inhuman treatm ent com plained of which w ere a sequel to travel in a bus, have been established. The Police Officers, acting under the colour of office assaulted the petitioner and subjected diem to inhuman treatm ent but the identity of the p articu lar officers who could have been personally responsible has not been established. Hence only the State would be obliged to pay compensation. Of consent, the above two applications were consolidated and heard together. The petitioner in application No. 4 (“1st…
Read More