The Petitioner, in his amended petition, further states that he was assaulted and tortured by the 1st , 3rd and 5 th Respondents at the Divisional Crime Investigation Unit. He, in paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in this Court, states that the assault/torture at the said Divisional Crime Investigation Unit was witnessed by G.A. Hemantha Perera and G.A. Rathnasiri Perera who were his brothers. But surprisingly the said Hemantha Perera and Rathnasiri Perera in their affidavits marked P8 and P9 do not support the said version of the Petitioner.…
Read MoreTag: illegal arrested
S. G. P. Dilshan Tilekeratne and Mother vs. Sergeant Douglas Ellepola and others. SC/FR No. 578/2011
The 1st Petitioner was a minor 15 years of age and the 2nd Petitioner was his mother at the time of filing this Fundamental Rights Application. 1st Petitioner by his application complains of illegal arrest, detention and torture by the 1st to 4th Respondents all being Constables/Inspectors of Police station, Yatawatta. It is pleaded that on or about 25.06.2011 the 1st Petitioner was playing near his house and two other children Sahan and Chathura from the neighbor-hood had brought several items to the house of the Petitioner which includes a…
Read MoreDinesh Priyankara Perera vs. police officers of panadura and others SC FR 260/2011
” The learned President’s Counsel pointed out that the instant application has been filed by the Petitioner only on the 27th of June 2011, well outside the 30 day period afforded, to invoke the jurisdiction of this court, in terms of article 126 (2) of the Constitution. It was also stressed that, the benefit of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, as far as the computation of time is concerned, accrues only to “an aggrieved party” and the said section has no application in instances, where the complaint to…
Read MoreOmaththaMudalige Don Gamini vs . Nishantha Silva Inspector of Police and others SC/FR 81/2011
On 26.1.2011 around 5.45 p.m. the 1st and the 2nd Respondents came to his shop at Keyzer Street Colombo and showed him an open warrant issued on one OM Don Gamini and took him to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Colombo. The 1stRespondent thereafter showed him a petition sent to His Excellency the President and to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and informed him that there are allegations against him (the Petitioner) regarding a double murder alleged to have been committed in 1982 and an incident relating to threating…
Read Morewarnakaulasooriya vs Police Sergeant Dayawansa SC. FR. Application No. 431/2010
The Petitioner in his Petition dated 02.08.2010 stated that on or about November 2009 he commenced employment in the “Mangalika Oil Mill” owned by Rukman Narasinghe of Karukkuwa, Madampe situated at Galahitiyawa, Madampe as a Machine Operator (Labourer). The Petitioner averred that his residence was situated approximately 400 Meters away from the aforesaid Oil Mill premises, and that his usual working hours at the Oil Mill were from 7.00 a.m. To 5.30 p.m. The Petitioner stated thatthere were 12 labourers inclusive of himself, and one Supervisor. Hence as the Petitioner…
Read MoreIshantha Kalansooriya vs Karunaratne and others SC FR Application No. 112/2010
On 24.01.2010 at or about 10.30 pm, the Petitioner was travelling on a pillion of a motor bike ridden by his friend Nanayakkara Masachchige Nalin Dayanga (Nalin) and were travelling along Galle-Baddegama road. While he was travelling in front of Meepawala Karunanyake’s house Sarath Kalansooriya (“Sarath”)gave a call to him to inquire about a matter involving one of his friends The Petitioner stated that he had a friendly conversation with Sarath to resolve a minor dispute regarding a verbal abuse which had taken place between Somasiri Madanayake and Sarath. The…
Read MoreC. A. Piyadasa vs Mahinda Balasooriya S.C. (FR) No.629/2010
The Petitioner alleges that in the early hours of 15th October, 2010 he opened the door of his residence in response to a sound of someone knocking at the door and had seen three persons outside his door and one had inquired whether he is “Podiputha Mudalali”. When he answered in the affirmative they had introduced themselves as officers from the Matugama Police. Having ordered the Petitioner to get into a three-wheeler, he had been driven some distance and ordered that he get off the vehicle. The Petitioner alleges that…
Read MoreChaminda Sampath Kumara vs Sub Inspector Salwatura, and others SC FR Application No. 244 / 2010
Chaminda Sampath Kumara was 31 yrs. He was a labourer. He has had no previous conviction of any offence or even a complaint against him prior to the incident which is the basis of the case in hand. He has come before this court complaining about his arrest by the Police and how much of physical and mental pain he had to go through until he was produced before the Magistrate. He has sought relief in respect of violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed by and under the Constitution. This…
Read MoreNandani Kumari, vs Padma Kumari Ekanayak and others SC /FR/ Application No 599/2009
The Petitioner who is a housewife, was married to one S.M. Abeyrathne a graduate teacher, and was 45 years of age and a mother of 3 children, at the time the alleged incident referred to in the petition was taken place. According to the Petitioner, an incident had taken place near her house on 27th June 2008 around 2.00 pm with one Padma Kumari Ekanayake when she was trying to dispose the garbage which was collected near her house, which ended up by the said Padma Kumari assaulting the Petitioner…
Read MoreSUNIL SHANTHA and others vs SUB-INSPECTOR SENEVIRATNE and others SC (FR) Application 479/2009
The two petitioners filed this fundamental rights application complaining that the 1st,2nd and 3rd respondents arrested the petitioners without a warrant and without any reasonable basis, wrongfully detained the petitioners and subjected them to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The petitioners also complained that the 1st and 3rd respondents failed to afford the petitioners their right to equal protection under the law. The petitioners stated that, thereby, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents have violated the petitioners’ rights guaranteed by Articles 11, 13 (1), 13 (2) and 12…
Read More