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 MoreTag: toucher
RATNAPALA v. DHARMASIRI, HEADQUARTERS INSPECTOR, RATNAPURA AND OTHERS SC APPLICATION 162/91
respondents had assaulted and brutally tortured the petitioner over a period of three weeks. The injuries suffered by the petitioner were irreparable, particularly in view of the fact that one of his lungs had to be surgically removed. The 1st (Hector Dharmasiri, Headquarters Inspector) and 2nd (I.P. Gunasekera, officer-in-charge), respondents deliberately encouraged, tolerated and acquiesced in the acts of torture and inhuman treatment inflicted on the petitioner on whom the J.M.O. found 26 injuries. Hence the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents who have been identified by the petitioner along…
Read MoreSirisena and others vs Ernest Perera and Others judgement was given by supreme court S. C. APPLICATION NO. 14/90
The 1st and 2nd Petitioners were engaged in carpentry work at Arijapala’s residence in Bullers Lane between 02 and 08 April. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Petitioners were arrested by the Police when they visited the Corona’s Court at the General Hospital Colombo on 21 April 1990 to see the 1st aid 2nd Petitioners who had been arrested by the Police and produced before the Coroner to give evidence at the inquest. The 3rd to 5th Petitioners were detained by the Police and so deprived of their liberty from 11.30…
Read MoreNamasivayan vs Gunawardene the judgement was given by supreme court S. C. APPLICATION NO. 166/86
The petitioner was travelling in a bus at Nawalapitiya when he was arrested by the 3rd respondent. He was not informed the reason for his arrest. He was taken to a security personnel camp and kept there and repeatedly assaulted by the 3rd respondent and other security personnel. He was forced to make a statement on the lines suggested by the 3rd respondent. He was not released after his statement as promised but continued to be kept in unlawful detention. The respondent said the petitioner was arrested because he was…
Read More