The Supreme Court ruled that three officers of the Anuradhapura Police had violated fundamental human rights by arresting a young man, taking him to the police station, tying his hands and feet, hanging him, brutally beating him, and subjecting him to torture. Further the man was accused of possessing heroin and was remanded in custody for refusing to give confession to the police in the manner required.

Supreme Court Justice Mahinda Samayawardena, with the concurrence of Justices Preethi Padman Surasena and Gamini Amarasekara, delivered this judgment while ruling on a fundamental rights petition filed by a young man named Sachitta Prabath Wijeratne, a resident of the Meegodawewa area in Anuradhapura.

Accordingly, the decision also states that the officers named as respondents in the relevant petition, Police Inspector B.S. Chandrasiri, Police Sergeant Sampath and Sergeant Nishantha of the Anuradhapura Police, are guilty of the charges of violating those fundamental rights.

At the time of the announcement of the decision, it had been reported to the court that Police Inspector Chandrasiri had died. 

Meantime, the decision also states that the other two sergeants should pay compensation of one hundred thousand rupees each from their personal funds and court costs of Rs. 25,000 each to the petitioner.

The bench ordered the two respondent police officers to pay the compensation within one month from the date of the announcement of the verdict and also ordered that a copy of the verdict be forwarded to the National Police Commission for necessary action.

While announcing the verdict, the bench stated that on October 3, 2020, at around 1.30 pm, in the Yakalla Grama Seva Division, the respondent police officers had taken the petitioner youth to the police station, claiming that they needed to question him.

“The young man who was taken to the Criminal Investigation Department was questioned by the respondents about a theft and the petitioner stated that he did not know anything about it.

The respondents then tied the petitioner’s hands and feet and beat him with a stick. They forced the petitioner to confess to the theft.

However, the petitioner refused to make such a confession and they then brutally beat the petitioner for several hours and subjected him to cruel torture. The respondents then took the petitioner’s fingerprints and signatures on a blank piece of paper,” 

The judges noted that at this point, the petitioner pleaded for water to drink, but it was revealed during the trial that the respondents did not provide water until the next day.

The petitioner was provided with water and food the next day, as stated in the affidavits submitted in the case. The verdict states that the seriously injured youth was admitted to the hospital after being produced before the Judicial Medical Officer the next day. The petitioner further stated that the respondents then falsely accused the petitioner of possessing heroin and produced him before the Acting Magistrate and remanded him in custody. 

The petitioner further stated in his petition, the respondent police officers later came to the hospital and stated that this was a mistake on their part and requested me not to take further action in this regard and that they would withdraw the charges filed, as the petitioner had further stated in his petition.

However, he had stated that he had rejected the police’s proposal.

Announcing the verdict, the judges stated that it was apparent that the respondents had acted in an arbitrary manner by overstepping the law and using the power vested in them in arresting and remanding the petitioner.

The judges also alleged that the respondents had acted to unnecessarily remand the petitioner by presenting fabricated charges to cover up the illegal act they had committed.

The judges pointed out that there is a tendency for the powerless and unprivileged groups in society to fall victim to such inhumane acts committed by the police, and the court observed this as a regrettable situation.

Accordingly, the three respondent police officers have violated the fundamental human rights enshrined in Articles 11, 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution, the bench further stated in its judgment.