Search this section:
Land Mark Case 07. Gerald Mervin Perera Vs Sena Suraweera (Inspector), Office-in-Charge, Police Station, Wattala. and others
Land Mark Case 07
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
In the matter of an application under Article 126 the Constitution.
W.R.Sanjeewa, Attorney-at-Law,
79/4, Pilagolla Watta,
Wataddara, Veyangoda.
On behalf of Waragodamudalige Mudalige Gerald Mervin Perera,
52/2B Iddhagodella, Mihidumawatte,
Gonagaha.
Petitioner
SC (FR) Application No. 328/2002
Vs.
1. Sena Suraweera (Inspector),
Office-in-Charge,
Police Station, Wattala.
2. Kosala Navaratne (Sub Inspector),
O.I.C. Crimes,
Police Station, Wattala.
3. Suresh Gunaratne alias Suraj Gunasena,
(Sub Inspector).
Police Station , Wattala.
4. Weerasinghe (Sub Inspector)
Police Station , Wattala.
5. Renuka (Sub Inspector)
Police Station , Wattala.
6. Nalin Jayasinghe (Police Constable),
Police Station , Wattala.
7. Perera (Police Constable),
Police Station , Wattala.
8. The Inspector General of Police,
Police Headquarters, Colombo 01.
9. Hon. Attorney General
The Attorney General's Department Hulftsdrop, Colombo 12.
Respondents
BEFORE : Fernando,J
Edussuriya, J., and
Wigneswaran, J.
COUNSEL : D.S. Wijesinghe, PC, for the Petitioner.
Prince Perera with D.D.P. Dassanayake for the 1st -7th Respondents;
P.A.K.Ranasinghe, SC, for the Attorney-General.
ARGUED ON : 27th February 2003.
DECIDED ON : 4th April 2003.
Fernando, J
The petitioner is a cook employed by Colombo Dockyard Ltd. He complains that the 1st to 8th Respondents have infringed his fundamental rights under Article 13 (1) by reason of his unlawful arrest on 3.6.2002, under Article 11 by torture thereafter whilst in Police custody, and under Article 13 (2) by unlawful detention till 4.6.2002. The 1st to 7th Respondents are Police Officers of the Wattala Police. The 1st Respondent is the Officer in Charge, the 2nd Respondent is the Officer-in-Charge Crimes, the 3rd to 5th Respondents are Sub Inspectors, and the 6th and 7th Respondents ate Constables. The 8th Respondent is the Inspector-General of Police.
The Petitioner's Version
According to the affidavit of the Petitioner's wife at about 11.45 a.m , on 3.6.2002, as she left home with her three-year old son in order to fetch her daughter from pre-school, she saw a Police jeep parked nearby. One Police officer asked for her husband, and she replied that he had not returned from work. She then heard one officer tell someone on his mobile telephone that they had not found the Petitioner but only his wife, and she also heard him ask what he should do.
The Petitioner's wife attempted to proceed to fetch her little daughter but the officers restrained her, and forced her and her son into the jeep. They then asked her to telephone the Petitioner at his workplace and to tell him to come home quickly as a child is ill, but she was unable to do so. She begged the officers to let her go to bring her daughter, but they refused and took her to the bus stand to await Petitioner's arrival.
At about 12.45p.m. The Petitioner got off the bus, and the officers dragged him into the jeep saying, "you are the man we are looking for', but gave no reason for his arrest. On the way they dropped the wife and son by the roadside.
The Petitioner's wife and brother have sworn detailed affidavits dated 19.06.2002. They stated that on 4.6.2002 at about 10.00 am the Petitioner's wife , his brother and other friends and relations went to the Wattala Police Station. The wife stated that she saw several of the officers who had come to arrest the Petitioner. She further stated that she saw the Petitioner in great pain, with his body swollen, and unable to walk and to move his arms, and that the Police Officers told her that the Petitioner had been arrested on wrong information