D.G. Wijotmanna vs. Diyakeliyawela and other police officers S.C. F.R. No: 138/2007

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrssyoutube

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 him to hold on to the said person to prevent himself falling off
the bus. However the said incident had ended without any further altercation, but it was later transpired that the said person who kicked him was the 7th respondent. As averred in paragraph 5 of the petition, following day (05. 02 .2007) around 8.30 a.m. the petitioner had
gone to Katugasthota town to purchase some vehicle spare parts. When he came back to his business place at around 9.30 a.m. he had seen a police jeep parked in front of his business premises. Thereafter he had been ordered to be taken to the police jeep which was
parked in front of his business place. He alleges that police officers failed to inform the petitioner the reasons for the arrest and also he was abused by the 6th respondent saying that he would be framed for possessing Ganja (cannabis) and would be sent to jail.

…… The respondents have attempted to establish that the petitioner was a witness in Magistrate Court of Kandy case No.33041 filed against one A.G.Piyadasa. But no materialhad been submitted that they went to the business place of the petitioner on 05.02.2007 to get
the relevant information in respect of prosecution witness No.3 of that case namely, one Ubaya Ekanayake. The respondents have failed in their attempt. There is no other evidence also to support their contention. Further, it appears that no evidence has been submitted by
the respondents to refute the allegation that the petitioner was kept in custody without producing before a Magistrate for more than 24 hours. In view of the above it is evident that rights guaranteed under Article 13(2) also have been violated. In view of the above analysis I accordingly grant declarations with regard to violations of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 11, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution against 11 – 7 respondents. I award the petitioner a sum of Rs. 120,000/- as compensation. The State is directed to pay the said amount and a further sum of Rs,.30,000/- as costs of this application to the petitioner. The said amounts of money shall be paid within three (3)months from today.

Read the full judgement here>>>

Social Sharing

Related posts