The Supreme Court has ruled that a police constable attached to the Dompe Police Station violated a woman's fundamental rights by subjecting her to severe physical assault and psychological harassment.
The Supreme Court has ordered the police constable to pay Rs. 100,000 in compensation to the petitioner from his personal funds, Ada Derana reporter said.
The judgment was delivered by Supreme Court Justice Menaka Wijesundara, with the concurrence of Justices Janak de Silva and Sampath Wijeratne, following the hearing of a fundamental rights petition filed by a resident of Thiththapaththara.
The petition, filed through Attorney-at-Law Himali Kulathunga stated that the petitioner had previously engaged in the illegal production of illicit liquor due to financial difficulties. Several cases had been filed against her before the Pugoda Magistrate's Court, in which she had been found guilty.
However, she informed court that she subsequently abandoned the illegal activity after realising that it offered no sustainable livelihood. She then turned to dairy farming and agricultural activities to support herself.
She also operated a poultry business and submitted its relevant registration certificate as evidence before the Supreme Court.
Despite having discontinued her involvement in illegal activities, the petitioner alleged that officers attached to the Dompe Police Station had repeatedly harassed her. She had lodged complaints regarding the alleged harassment with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and the National Police Commission.
According to the petition, on October 7, 2019, a team of officers from the Police Special Task Force arrived and arrested her husband on suspicion of manufacturing illicit liquor.
The petitioner stated that she subsequently travelled to the Dompe Police Station in a three-wheeler carrying a packet of food for her husband.
While at the police station, the police constable in question allegedly assaulted her and subjected her to psychological harassment.
Photographs documenting her external injuries, along with relevant medical records, were also submitted to the Supreme Court in support of her allegations.
Court observed that the respondent had failed to file objections within the prescribed period in response to the petition. Accordingly, he had only been permitted to make submissions on matters of law.
In delivering the judgment, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had been subjected to repeated harassment by police officers even before the incident in question. Documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner supported these claims.
The Court further observed that an affidavit submitted by a relative of the petitioner, who was also the three-wheeler driver, provided additional corroboration of her account.
The judgment noted that the evidence established a pattern of oppressive and aggressive conduct by police officers towards the petitioner, both before and after the incident.
Upon consideration of the evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the respondent police constable had subjected the petitioner to cruel treatment, thereby violating her fundamental right to freedom from torture, guaranteed under Article 11 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka.
Consequently, the Court ordered the police constable to pay Rs. 100,000 in compensation to the petitioner from his personal funds.
