The Supreme Court has held that a police constable attached to the Dompe Police Station violated a woman’s fundamental rights by assaulting her, and has ordered him to pay Rs 100,000 in compensation from his personal funds within six months.
The court declared that the first respondent, Police Constable Lakmal (84253), infringed the petitioner’s right under Article 11 of the Constitution, which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Daily Mirror reported.
A three-judge bench of Justices Janak De Silva, Menaka Wijesundera and Sampath Wijeratne allowed the fundamental rights petition filed by Jayasinghage Nirmala Kanthi.
What happened at the station
The petitioner said she went to the Dompe Police Station on 7 October 2019 to deliver a lunch packet to her husband, who had been arrested by Special Task Force officers over an allegation of brewing illicit liquor. She alleged that the constable subjected her to physical and verbal assault.
The case against the officer was built on ordinary documentary evidence. She produced a medico-legal examination receipt and a diagnosis ticket, together with photographs of her injuries. The court observed that the injuries visible in the photographs appeared to correspond with those recorded in the medical documents.
She also filed an affidavit from the three-wheeler driver who had taken her to the police station and then driven her to hospital for treatment. The court found that it corroborated her account.
Counsel
Senior Counsel Himalee Kularatne appeared for the petitioner. Counsel Udaya Bandara, instructed by Kalana De Silva, appeared for the first respondent. State Counsel Induni Punchihewa appeared for the Attorney General.
Context
The ruling lands in a week when police conduct towards people in their custody has been repeatedly before the authorities. A police sergeant was arrested over the Kobeigane custody death after a Human Rights Commission intervention, and a separate inquiry is running into the police shooting of a three-wheeler at Kadawatha that left a 16-year-old in critical condition.
What distinguishes this case is the remedy. The compensation is payable by the officer personally, not by the State — a direction the Supreme Court reserves for conduct it treats as the officer’s own rather than the institution’s.
Not reported
The filing does not give the date of the judgment, say whether the State was separately ordered to pay compensation, or report what the court said about the delay between the 2019 assault and the ruling. It does not state whether the constable faces any disciplinary or criminal proceedings, whether he remains in service, or what became of the illicit liquor allegation against the petitioner’s husband. This report rests on a single source.
