The Supreme Court ruled that a constable attached to Dompe Police had violated the fundamental rights of a woman by assaulting her and subjecting her to physical and psychological harassment after she had abandoned illicit liquor production and turned to lawful agricultural work.
The Court ordered the constable, identified as Lakmal, to pay Rs. 100,000 in compensation to the petitioner from his personal funds.
Justice Menaka Wijesundera delivered the judgement, with Justices Janak de Silva and Sampath Wijeratne concurring, following the hearing of a fundamental rights petition filed by Jayasinghage Nirmala Kanthi, a resident of Thiththapaththara.
In her petition, filed through Attorney-at-Law Himali Kularatne, the woman acknowledged that poverty had previously driven her to engage in illicit liquor production. Police had filed several cases against her before the Pugoda Magistrate’s Court, in which she had been convicted.
However, she said she had subsequently abandoned those activities after realising they served no useful purpose and had begun earning a living through dairy farming and agriculture. She also operated a poultry business and submitted its registration certificate to the Supreme Court.
Despite this, she alleged that Dompe Police officers had repeatedly harassed her, prompting complaints to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and the National Police Commission.
According to the petitioner, a group of Special Task Force officers arrested her husband on 7 October 2019 on allegations of illicit liquor production.
She subsequently travelled to Dompe Police in a three-wheeler driven by a man known as “Chanaka Malli”, taking a parcel of food for her husband. She said the respondent constable assaulted her at the police station and subjected her to psychological harassment.
She submitted photographs of her external injuries and medical documents to support her account.
The respondent failed to file objections within the stipulated period. The Court consequently permitted him to make submissions only on questions of law.
In its judgement, the Court noted that documents submitted by the petitioner demonstrated a pattern of police harassment predating the assault. An affidavit from a three-wheeler driver, who was also her relative, further corroborated her account.
The Court found that police had acted towards the petitioner in an excessively oppressive and aggressive manner both before and after the incident.
Having examined the evidence, the Court concluded that the respondent constable had subjected her to torture, violating her fundamental right guaranteed under Article 11 of the Constitution.
Attorney-at-Law Himali Kularatne appeared for the petitioner, while Senior State Counsel Induni Punchihewa appeared for the Attorney General.
