Arresting a woman on fabricated charges; SC awards Rs.500,000 compensation

• Even though the petitioner was a ‘wanted suspect’ at the time of her  arrest, the law requires the arresting officer to explain the reason for  the arrest

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda  

The Supreme Court has ordered three police officers attached to Ambalangoda Police Station to pay a total of Rs.500,000 to a 58-year-old woman from their personal funds for her wrongful arrest based on a fabricated false case.  

Justice Vijith Malalgoda concurring with Justice S. Thurairaja and Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena observed that even though the petitioner was a ‘wanted suspect’ at the time of her arrest, the law requires the arresting officer to explain the reason for the arrest. It was revealed that the petitioner was not explained the reasons for her arrest at the time of her arrest by police. The Supreme Court further directed the State to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 as the cost for the litigation.  

The Supreme Court held that, Inspector W.A. Mahinda, Police Constable Sandaruwan and Sub Inspector Bandara Karunathilake have violated the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution and the second and third respondents have also violated the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 13 (1) of the Constitution.  

In her petition, the petitioner admits to having a past record of several convictions for possession and sale of illicit liquor and drugs but had taken up the position that she had a reformed life in the recent past.  

It was revealed that the respondents have fabricated a false case against the petitioner for possession of six packets that contained 710 milligrams of suspected brown powder. She was arrested illegally when she came to appear before Senior Superintendent Elpitiya to attend an inquiry subsequent to a complaint made by her against police for breaking into the house of the petitioner’s daughter in Ahungalla.  

The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents have fabricated charges against the Petitioner. This fact was established from the fact that the petitioner had finally been discharged from the proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court after being in remand custody for nearly six months when the Government Analyst could not identify dangerous drugs in the samples submitted to him.  

Counsel Sanjeewa Ranaweera with Malaka Palliyaguruge instructed by Dinesh de Silva appeared for the petitioner. Counsel Vishva M. Gunaratne with Darshika Perera appeared for the respondents. State Counsel Chathurangi Mahawaduge appeared for the Attorney General.