सव भव तु सिखनः ु It was revealed that on 19 November 2021, six (6) tribal women were all picked up by the police from the weekly market at Papadi- Koliwad in Vasai (West) on suspicion of being thieves while they were shopping. The police took the vic ms to the Vasai police sta on, where they were all brutally beaten up by three police personnel to confess to a crime they had not commi ed. One of the accused police personnel was iden fied as an Assistant Police Inspector (API). In pursuant to the same, a report dated 20 December 2021 was received from the Office of DCP, Circle-II, Vasai, District Palghar, Maharashtra, which suggested that the API had been suspended f rom service for assaul ng six tribal women, and officials of all local organisa ons and the vic m women had expressed sa sfac on over the suspension of API for bea ng them. The Commission considered the report and observed it as a grave case of compensa on to the vic ms. Therefore, a no ce u/s 18a(i) of PHRA was issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, direc ng him to show cause as to why the Commission should not recommend payment of compensa on of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to each vic m for the viola on of their human rights by the public servant. In response to the direc ons of the Commission, the reply to the show cause no ce stated that the compensa on to the vic m may have an effect on the morale of the police personnel. Therefore, it was requested to withdraw the show cause no ce issued. The Commission considered the reply to the show cause no ce and materials on record, reaching the conclusion that the report received did not put forward any substan al ma er to controvert the findings and recommenda ons of the Commission. Therefore, the monetary compensa on recommended by the Commission was confirmed. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, was directed to pay the compensa on amount as per the direc ons of the Commission and submit its compliance report along with the proof of payment to the Commission. With these direc ons, the case was closed on 14 November 2022. 10.) Police Misconduct: Illegal Deten on and Torture in Tirupa , Chitoor, Andhra Pradesh (Case No: 608/1/3/2017) The Commission received a complaint on 28 June 2017, alleging that the complainant in this case had been picked up by the police, dragged, and illegally detained for 18 Chapter 7 - Thematic Areas hours in the East Police Sta on, Tirupa , Chi oor, Andhra Pradesh. It was also alleged that he was tortured and abused. Pursuant to the direc ons of the Commission, SP, Tirupa , Urban Police, submi ed a report which revealed that the complainant was suspected to be involved in a bagsnatching case and was found wandering at the place of the incident in suspicious circumstances at odd hours on a motorcycle. Since the descrip on of the thief also matched with the complainant, he was taken into custody for interroga on but was allowed to go a er establishing his iden ty. The complainant had the support of poli cal leaders and got the news item published in the local newspapers. It was stated that based on the newspaper report, a departmental inquiry was ordered, and based on the Inquiry Report, minor V.R. was awarded to one Inspector, one Sub Inspector, and one Head Constable. The Commission, while considering the ma er on account of the punishment meted out to the police officials, took the view that prime facie, human rights of the complainant had been violated and directed the issuance of the no ce u/s 18 of PHRA to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to show cause as to why a compensa on of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) should not be recommended to be paid. The Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District Tirupa , responded by sta ng that the police ac on was jus fied under Sec on 42 of Cr.PC and that there was no ill mo ve or viola on of human rights. The police personnel were punished for the delay in establishing the iden ty of the complainant/ vic m and requested the dropping of the show cause no ce. Meanwhile, the Chief Secretary of Andhra Pradesh submi ed a response to the show cause no ce which stated that the complainant/ vic m was taken into custody for an inquiry, but his rights were not violated. The complainant was not detained for more than 24 hours. According to the complainant, he was detained for only 18 hours, and there was no evidence of torture, harassment, or injuries found on his body. It was asserted that the police ac on was within the framework of Sec on 42 of Cr.PC, and the police had not violated any human rights of the complainant while performing their du es. However, due to the delay in establishing the iden ty of the complainant, the concerned staff responsible for it was already punished. He requested to drop further ac on on the show cause no ce and to close 29