Kochi: The high court on Thursday ordered an interim compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the mother of Udayakumar a person who had died in custody due alleged police torture in 2005.
Justice P D issued the directive after considering during admission hering a criminal revision petition flled by Sabu E K, a police officer who is accused of manipulating the vidence related to the custodial death on September 27,2005. The court ordered the government to pay the compensation to Udayakumar ‘s mother Prabhavathy of Nedumangad within 30 days and to recover it be form the retirement benefit of the police officers who are involved in the case if they are found guilty.
For ordering compensation the court relied on the Supreme Court ‘ 2014 decision, in Suresh vs. State of Haryana that allows courts to order interim compensation under victim compensation scheme if the victim of the crime needs .Further the court pointed out that the trial in the case has been delayed by the accused police officers through continuous litigations and directed speeding up of the trial .
Udayakumar a manual labourer was detained and brought to Fort police station in Thriuvanthapuram after a police patrol team found Rs 4,000 in cash with him. Police allegedly used the ‘uruttu’ method of torturing (rolling an iron road across the body by holding it down with force) on Udayakumar . A post – mortem report had indicated injury to his thigh bines. While he was allegedly detained sine around 2.30 pm it was recorded as 8pm in the FIR.
Based on a complaint by Prabhavathy the probe in the case was later transferred to CBI. Following a case was registered alleging that efforts were made to hide the roles of those involved in the cluding altering the records maintained at the police station. Both the cases were investigated by CBI based on orders issued by the high court.
In the latest petition the accused had alleged procedural irregularity on the part of the CBI team and sought a stay on the trial. After perusing the case diary and other records the high court said triad in the case could not be started even after 10 years due the continuous litigations by the accused in the case.
