Last week an Inspector of Police (IP) and a Police Constable (PC) who were accused of torturing a 25 year-old woman, Angalin Roshana Michael, were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/= in lieu of which a further one year of imprisonment would be imposed.
A former Officer-in-Charge of the Crime Division at Narahenpita police, IP Shelton Saley and PC Stanley Tissera were convicted by Colombo High Court Judge Upali Abeyratne
In this case Angalin Roshana complained that she was arrested by the Officer-in-Charge, Crime Division of the Narahenpita police, at about 8:00 pm on December 3, 2000; that she was detained in police custody until she was produced before a magistrate shortly before noon on December 5, 2000, and that she was tortured while in custody.
The police officer had arrested her on the basis of a complaint made by an affluent family where Angalin Roshana used to work as a part time domestic helper. The complainant, who is a lady lawyer sought the help of the Narahenpita police regarding the loss of a gold watch valued at Rs. 500,000/= which she thought the domestic helper had stolen. The IP together with the complainant went to Roshanas house and searched the premises, but were unable to find the watch. The IP thereafter took Roshana to the complainants house where the domestic helper was held for about four hours and was asked to find the watch. As she pleaded innocent the complainant handed her over to the police for interrogation. Roshana gave evidence that she was held at the police station overnight and was beaten severely, threatened and was told to reveal where the gold watch was hidden. Her pleas of innocence went unheard.
Due to the interventions of her family several persons visited her while she was in police custody and legal assistance was provided to her. A lawyer appeared in court when she was produced before the magistrate and promptly informed the court of the torture that had taken place at the police station. On the magistrates order she was examined by a Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) who issued a medical report.
The medical report showed the following injuries to Angalin Roshana. The JMO testified that she had seven contusions: on the left shoulder (4″ X 3″), left upper arm near the arm pit (2″ X 2″), back of the left upper arm (3″ X 1″), right shoulder (3″ X 3″), left buttock (3″ X 1.5″), left buttock extending to the upper left thigh (2.5″ diameter), and right buttock (3″ X 1.5″). Furthermore, The JMO was of the opinion that these injuries had been caused by an assault with blunt object and were around two to four days old, consistent with the assault, complained of by Angalin Roshana.
At the trial Roshana herself, and several other persons gave evidence. The police officer also gave evidence, accepting the arrest but denying torture. The trial was protracted and lasted for a period of almost six years. The High Court judge held that the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
To the knowledge of the AHRC this is the third conviction under the CAT Act, Act No. 22 of 1994. The Act prescribes a mandatory seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 on conviction of charges under the Act. The Act defines torture as follows:
‘…..”torture” with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions. means any act which causes severe pain, whether physical or mental, to any other person, being an act which is – (a) done for any of the following purposes that is to say – (i) obtaining from such other person or a third person, any information or confession; or (ii) punishing such other person for any act which he or a third person has committee, or is suspected of having committed ; or (iii) intimidating or coercing such other person or a third person; or done for any reason based on discrimination, and being in every case, an act which is done by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public officer or other person acting in an official capacity.
The AHRC was involved in the pursuit of this case from the very day of the arrest of Angalin Roshana as her family, through a close associate, was able to inform us of this case. The AHRC was also able to provide legal assistance to her in her application to the Supreme Court as well as in the case before the High Court. In the Supreme Court case, a three bench court, presided over by Justice Mark Fernando, held in June 2002, that the police inspector had violated the rights of the petitioner, Angalin Roshana by torture and illegal detention and ordered compensation of Rs. 100,000/= .
The police then filed charges in the Magistrate’s Court against Angalin Roshana for the theft of the gold watch worth Rs. 500,000/=. However, the case was dismissed as there was no evidence brought against her. It is quite a common practice in Sri Lanka for police officers to fabricate charges against those who complain against them.
The judgement in this case exposes some of the paradoxes in the criminal justice system of Sri Lanka. It is quite well known that the use of torture is endemic within the police investigation system in Sri Lanka. Radikha Coomaraswamy, the former chairperson of the Human Rights Commission observed:
Over the last two years we have had an increase in the daily number of torture complaints. I don’t know whether this is due to an increase in the actual number of torture cases taking place or because of an increase in the reporting of such cases, as there are a number of very active international and national NGOS in Sri Lanka now working in this area. Either way, we felt that we should urgently respond to this situation, so we adopted a zero-policy on torture. Furthermore, our discussions with the police and other individuals and agencies have revealed that the police had not really been trained in basic investigative skills. For some reason, the training was more of a paramilitary nature. Torture is often a short cut to getting information, and as a result it is systematic and widespread.
We are not talking about isolated cases of rogue policemen: we are talking about the routine use of torture as a method of investigation. It requires fundamental structural changes to the police force to eradicate these practices
Regrettably, the police hierarchy has not taken any steps to stop the practice of torture. In fact it considers torture a necessary element in the investigation of crime. On the other hand the law in Sri Lanka treats torture as a crime. And at least in some cases like that of Angalin Roshana, police officers are sent to jail for a period of seven years for committing this offense. However, the deterrent effect that such punishments should have will not be felt when just a few officers are punished for a practice which is endemic and practiced daily in all police stations in Sri Lanka. Such paradoxes can only be resolved by a conscious effort on the part of the Ministry of Justice and Law Reforms, the judiciary and the prosecution branch in the country which is represented by the Attorney General
