At the Police Station the 2nd Respondent had grabbed the 1st Petitioner by his hair and assaulted him asking in sinhala ‘badu deepan’. Thereafter the 2nd Respondent who was wearing shoes, had pulled the 1st Petitioner on to the ground and trampled the 1st Petitioner whilst kicking him. At that time, the 2nd Respondent had received a telephone call and had ordered the 1st Respondent to move the 1st Petitioner out of the room. Upon the said directions, the 1st Respondent had taken the 1st Petitioner to the Crime Division…
Read MoreTag: torture
K.H.G. Kushan Indika, vs Christy Leonard Ranjan Wijesekera, Officer-in-Charge,J.M. Karunaratne, Superintendent of Police, S.C. (FR) Application No. 129/2007
The petitioner, who was a Driver attached to the Sri Lanka State Plantation Corporation, had complained that his fundamental rights guaranteed in terms of Articles 11 and 13(1) of the Constitution were violated by the 1st respondent for which this Court had granted leave to proceed. The petitioner’s complaint, as submitted by him, albeit brief, is as follows: The petitioner had to report for work usually at the Head Office of the Sri Lanka Plantation Corporation situated at Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02 and as he was from Niyagama, Talgaswatta, for…
Read MoreUduwa Athukoralage Chandrasena, vs Sub-Inspector Buddhika, Officer-in-Charge – Crimes, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, S.C. (FR) Application No. 258/2007
The petitioner complained that he was arrested on 27.06.2007 around 11.30 a.m. while he was on his way to attend a funeral in the Neluketiya area and that at the time he was arrested the,1st respondent had assaulted him. The petitioner accordingly alleged that due to the aforementioned action his fundamental rights guaranteed in terms of Articles 11, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution had been infringed for which this Court had granted leave to proceed. Although leave to proceed was granted on Articles 11, 13(1) and 13(2) of the…
Read MoreBandula Samarasekera, vs Vijitha Alwis, Officer-in-Charge, Chief Inspector Dehigama, Officer-in-Charge S.C. (FR) Application No. 107/2007,
The petitioner had been an employee at Brown and Company from 1979 – 1996 and thereafter was engaged in facilitating sales of vehicles. His wife is a retired teacher in English who was the Head of the English Division of the Advanced Technical Institute, Kandy. Their son Sahan, was 24 years of age at the time of this incident and was engaged in a mobile phone shop in Kandy. In 2005, the petitioner and his wife had learnt that Sahan was having an affair with a married woman. In the…
Read MoreD.G. Wijotmanna vs. Diyakeliyawela and other police officers S.C. F.R. No: 138/2007
It has been alleged by the petitioner that on or about 04. 02 .2007 around 4.30 p.m. he had boarded a bus from Katugasthota town to return to his business place. As there was a person standing on the upper stand of the foot-board of the bus, he had to request that person to move inside, in order to get inside the bus. This having led to an exchange of words between two of them, the said person had kicked the petitioner hard resulting the petitioner losing his balance requiring…
Read Moreදිනේශ් තරින්ද වදහිංසා නඩුව 2303/2007
2004.06.01 හා 2004.06.03 වන දින අතර කාලය තුල දී මොහුට චූදිත හර්ෂණ තිලංග ගුණසිංහ යන අය තොරතුරු දැනගැනීමට බියගන්වා වද දුන් බැවින් 1994 අංක 22 දරණ සම්මුතියේ වගන්ති අනුව මොහු වරදක් සිදුකර ඇත. ඒ අනුව මෙම දිනේශ් තරින්ද යන යන අයව අත්තඩංගුවට ගෙන මාංචු දමා විනාඩි 45ක් පමණ පහර දී ඇත. ඒ අවස්තාවේ දී ඔහුට ක්‍රිකට් පොලු වලින්ද පහර දී ඇත. එමෙන්ම ඔහුට පා පහරවල් ද එල්ල කර ඇතම් මෙම පහර දීම් නිසා ඔහුගේ අත කැඩුණු බව ද පවසයි. නමුත් මෙම චෝදනා සියල්ලෙහිම සාක්ෂි සලකා බැලීමේ දී සාධාරණ සැකයෙන් ඔබ්බට…
Read MoreAmarasinghe Arachchige Mangalasiri Amarasinghe, vs P.M. Seneviratne, Inspector of Police,Anil Priyantha, Headquarters Inspector, S.C. (F/R) No. 264/2006
The Petitioner is an Anesthetist, attached to the Base Hospital Dambulla and was also the Chief Organizer of the United National Party for Dodangaslanda. The 1st Respondent is an Inspector of Police of the Kurunegala Police Station. The 2nd Respondent is the Head Quarters Inspector of the Kurunegala Police Station. The Petitioner alleges that he was assaulted by the 1st Respondent inside the Kurunegala Police Station premises on 21.06.2006 and as such the Petitioner’s Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 11 of the Constitution have been infringed. The primary issue to…
Read MoreRoshan Mahesh Ukwatta, vs Sub Inspector Marasinghe, Officer in Charge,Sagara Liyanage, Inspector of Police,The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, SC. FR Application No. 252/2006
When the case was mentioned in open Court on 09-11-2006 the 1st and 2nd respondents were absent and unrepresented and the State Counsel who represented the 4th Respondent ( Hon. the Attorney-General) had informed Court that the Attorney General was not appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents. Perusal of the docket reveals that on 25th August 2008 the Attorney-General had intimated to Court that on investigation reports filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents the Petitioner would be discharged in the criminal proceedings. However the petitioner elected to proceed…
Read MoreKUMARA VS. SILVA, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WELIPENNA AND OTHERS SC(FR) APPLICATION No. 121/2004.
Petitioner who claimed to be an artisan who agreed to paint the police emblem for the Independence Day Celebrations was taken to the Welipenna Police on 03.02.2004 at about 8.30 a.m. by the 1st respondent sub inspector in a jeep. He said that on the way he was assaulted by the 1 st respondent who also arrested one Don Shantha. He sustained injuries. At the Police Station the petitioner was taken to the 1st respondent’s room and assaulted with a wicket on his shoulders, neck, arms and knees over 80…
Read MoreNANDASENA VS CH AN D R AD ASA, O. I. C., PO LICE STATION, HINIDUMA AND OTHERS SC (SPL) APPLICATIO N No. 12/2004
T he p e titioner com plained that the 1st respondent O IC cam e near his boutique in a jeep; and after sum m oning him assaulted him on his face. He was then taken to the police station by other police officers. He com plained of infringem ent of A rticles 11 and 13(1) of the Constitution. He alleged that a part of his boutique had been dem olished. It was proved that on inform ation received by the 1st respondent over the telephone, from a Pradeshiya Sabha…
Read More