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 MoreTag: torture
Amarasinghe 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 MoreERANDAKA AND ANOTHER V HALWELA, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, POLICE STATION, HAKMANA AND OTHERS
The two petitioners were arrested on the morning of 14.8.2001 by the 2nd and 3rd respondent police officers and other police officers for alleged theft of a water pump. They were examined by a medical officer of a hospital at noon the same day who found no injuries on them. The same day they were produced before a Magistrate who remanded them until 23.8.2001. Thereafter they complained to court that they were assaulted by the 2nd and 3rd respondents and another police officer at the police station and also by…
Read MoreSRI THAMINDA, DHARSHANE AND MAHALEKAM v INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS SC FR 463/464/465/03
The petitioners allege violations of Articles, 11 and 13(1) by certain officers. They complain that they were arrested without justification and were brutally assaulted, and further contend that, they were subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of Article 11. The respondents contended that the petitioners were under the influence of liquor and when the 3rd petitioner was requested to move his three wheeler away, the petitioners had attacked the respondents and the Police Constable who had sustained injuries had to be hospitalised,…
Read MoreGuneththige Misilin Nona, Akkara Heththedeka, vs Muthubanda (10312), Police Constable Moragahahena Police Station, Moragahahena. Maheepala, Officer in Charge, S.C. (F/R) No. 429/2003
The 1st and the 2nd Petitioners are respectively the mother and sister of the deceased Thisera Sunil Hemachandra who died on 26th July 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), while allegedly in Police custody. The deceased was a Sri Lankan citizen and 32 years of age at the time of his death. The 1st Respondent was a Police constable attached to the Police Station at the time of the death of the deceased. The 2nd Respondent is the Officer in Charge of the Police Station. The 3rd Respondent is…
Read MoreRATNAYAKE AND ANOTHER vs MEDIWAKA, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANDY AND OTHERS S. C (FR) 231/2003
The petitoners were owners of Hotel “Sunray’’ Kandy and complained to the Police and the court that on 10.04.2003 they had invited about 30 persons to celebrate an award which their son had received from Trinity College. While they were awaiting the arrival of guests, some of whom had arrived, about 30 persons dressed in camouflage uniform arrived with T-56 rifles and entered the hotel and searched it. The 2nd and 3rd respondents who were police officers attached to the Kandy Police were there. They showed a search warrant. The…
Read MoreSARJUN v KAMALDEEN AND TWO OTHERS, by supreme court. SC FR 559/03
The petitioner and 3 others were transporting household furniture in their lorry, from Colombo to Katuwana. As they reached Habarana at night, he decided to spend the night at Habarana and parked the lorry on the side of the road. The petitioner had a permit to transport obtained under the Forest Ordinance, although a permit was not necessary The petitioner claims that he obtained same out of an abundance of caution valid from 1 p.m. on 18.9.03 to 12 noon 19.9.03. Later in the night the 1st respondent came up…
Read More