Rajakannu and his wife Parvathi (hereafter Petitioner) staying in a small village with four children. suddenly one day police came to petitioner house for taking custody to her husband at that time her husband went to work at early morning so police took petitioner, her two sons and her brother-in-law beaten by police petitioner that night slept in the police station after a while petitioner husband caught by police. Then police detained the petitioner and her sons and her brother-in-law. The day after, the petitioner came to the police station with food to see her husband. Police informed that petitioner husband had escaped from custody and he was missing then petitioner moved the high court under article 226 of the constitution of India and has sought for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the production of the body of petitioner husband and compensation as a consequence of the alleged detention, injuries and disappearance of Rajakannu at the hand of the Respondents herein and others as well has for the misbehavior of the respondents with the petitioner and others.

Facts:
Five police officers travelled to the petitioner's village with police sub inspector and others. to police station with them. On March 22, 1993, when the petitioner's spouse was taken into jail, she witnessed her husband being violently abused by police while being chained to the window bars. She was also assaulted after she was questioned about the same.

The petitioner husband had major wounds on the body due to the wounds sustained by them and their health deteriorating resultantly, a homeopathic doctor was called to treat them. Once the doctor left, they were again beaten by police.

Then the petitioner was forced to leave the police station before she reached the village. The police already reached her village and said that the husband of the petitioner was missing in the police station.

The petitioner conducted several investigations and then sent telegrams to the chief minister and chief judge of Madras. She claimed that the respondent police had murdered her husband, secretly dumped the body, and filed a missing persons report. The court accepted the petition on April 21, 1993.

The respondent police provided their own version of events as follows: on 20-03- 1993 one kadirvel padayachi of another village filed a complaint for a theft alleging that 43 sovereigns of gold valued at Rs 1,30,000/- was stolen on 19-03-1993.

It was discovered that some residents of the petitioner's village had inquired about the petitioner's husband in particular. On March 21, 1993, the petitioner's husband was located and questioned. He was then taken to several locations, including Neyveli and Didrikuppam, among others. On March 20, 1993, they encountered the petitioner and, on the basis of some information she had provided, brought her to the police station.

The husband of the petitioner had been told to spend the night in the thatched building next to the police station. However, after a thorough search, he had vanished that very night, and he wasn't discovered until January 4, 1993.

Arguments
The fourth respondent said that after scrutinizing the contents of the petition I immediately directed the third respondent herein to investigate into the matter and as evidenced by note bearing C No-102 dated 23-03-1993 he has also stated that it was pursuant to the directions given by him that the third respondent viz deputy superintendent of police, vridhachalam, instructed the Inspector of police, vridhachalam to take further action in the matter. Further action, this respondent's affidavit says accordingly the case in Cr.No 114/93 was registered on the file of kamalapuram police station as man missing and the same is being investigated by him. As to the allegations of assault upon the petitioner, her husband and others, by the police at the said police station, this respondent has said, the deputy Superintendent of police, Vridhachalam referred the matter to the revenue divisional officer, Vridhichalam R. Krishnamurthy for enquiry and as submitted earlier directed the third respondent herein also to register a case and investigate into the same.

Despite acknowledging that the second respondent gave him the go-ahead to look into the petition submitted by the petitioner on March 24, 1993, the respondent as well as deputy superintendent of police stated, "Accordingly, I directed the inspector of police, Virudhachalam-police station to register a case & investigate into the same." However, he has another testimony that allegedly reveals that Rasakannu was seen by one Panneerselvam at Mandarakuppam hamlet in Neyveli at around 9.0 pm on March 22, 1993, during the investigation into the case that he had begun. The probe also revealed that Rasakannu borrowed Rs 100 from the aforementioned Panneerselvam while simultaneously telling him he was visiting the neighborhood doctor Mr. K. Ramachandran because he was experiencing physical discomfort.

The fourth respondent's counter-affidavit contains a narrative of events to the following effect: on March 20, 1993, each Kadiveral Padayachi, son of Ponnuswamy Padayachi of Gopalapuram village, filed some complaints with him for an offense of theft. The complaints had alleged that some trespassers into his house on the night of March 19, 1993, stole jewelry valued at approximately 43 sovereigns, that took place reported to police under Sections 457 and 380

On 21-03-1993 fourth respondent went to Madannai and traced Rajakannu about 5 pm and questioned him regarding the theft. In the night about 9.45 pm he escaped from the police station.

However, the petitioner stuck to her claims, denied the allegations, and argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner's spouse had escaped from police custody. The case, however, took an odd turn when the court began to hear testimony on whether the petitioner's account or that of the fourth respondent was accurate; whether the petitioner's husband had escaped from police station or was somewhere available to either petitioner or any other person; and whether there was any justification for entertaining a writ petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus based on the facts that were material. A few respondents have oddly additionally cross-examined some witnesses in addition to being cross-examined themselves.

We explored whether it was possible to get to the truth by an impartial investigation strictly in accordance with law when the matter first came before us for hearing and we heard learned counsel for such parties on the desirability of any enquiry through this court after taking evidence that either petitioner or the respondents intended to adduce. On assurance by the learned Advocate General that there would be an impartial investigation by an.

However, as stated through our order dated April 29, 1994, we accepted the investigative proposal with minor modifications. We instructed the petitioner to include in the case record a thorough account of the circumstances that could serve as a first information report for the police to act upon. In response, the petitioner submitted a thorough affidavit of an event signed by one Govindaraj, which, when combined with Parvathi's declaration, seemed to wrap up the petitioner's case's account of the occurrences.

Judgment
Court passed the following order: We therefore order the government to award the petitioner compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,10,000, pay her Rs. 10,000 in cash, and invest the remaining Rs. 1,00,000 on her behalf in the some safe scheme without risk to deliver to her monthly income of at least Rs. 1,000. In addition to the monetary compensation, the state shall immediately recognise the petitioner's tenancy and issue the necessary orders of assignment.

The government shall invest a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in addition to the above, in the name of the minor daughter of the petitioner, viz chinnaponnu, which money the petitioner shall not be entitled to withdraw and interest shall be delivered to the petitioner's minor daughter chinnaponnu only when she would attain majority and when she is married. Achi, another victim who has suffered greatly at the hands of the fourth respondent & his men, shall receive a separate monetary settlement from the government in the amount of Rs 50,000; Kullan, Achi's stepson, shall receive a separate monetary settlement in the amount of Rs 25,000; and Ravi, Mariappan, Rathinam, Govindarajan, and Kolanchi shall receive a separate monetary settlement in the amount of Rs 10,000.

It is clear that any compensation provided to Kolanchi, the son of Achi, and Ravi, the son of the petitioner R. Parvathi, who are both minors, shall be accepted on respective behalf by their guardians exclusively. It will be proper, in our opinion, in such a situation to order that Rs. 10,000/- to Kolanchi received as compensation will be kept by the state in their favor so that when they reach majority, they will get the full compensation amount plus interest. Within a week of receiving a copy of this order, the investments for such aforementioned purposes must be made. Within three months of receiving a copy of this ruling, all proceedings related to the above-requested assignment of a land to petitioner R. Parvathi should be finished. In the event that the case is tried in courts in accordance with the law, the state government will have the right to realize and recoup the amount of compensation from the fourth respondent or any other accused party. The court ruled that Rajakannu's death occurred in a custody setting, and the accused police officers were subsequently given a fourteen-year prison term with hard labor.

Analysis of the case
Rajakannu and his wife Parvathi (hereafter Petitioner) was staying in a small village with four children. suddenly one day police came to petitioner house for taking custody to her husband at that time her husband went to work at early morning so police took petitioner, her two sons and her brother-in-law beaten by police, petitioner that night slept in the police station after a while petitioner husband caught by police. Then police detained the petitioner and her sons and her brother-in-law. The petitioner visited the police station the following day with food in order to see her husband.

When the police reported that the petitioner's husband had escaped from custody and was missing, the petitioner sought a writ in the nature of a habeas corpus for production of the body of the petitioner husband as well as compensation for Rajakannu's alleged detention, injuries, and disappearance at the hands of a Respondents herein and many others as well as for the misbehavior of the respondents. This lawsuit was filed by Parvathi, a member of a tribal group. As a result of the alleged detention, harm, as well as disappearance of Rajakannu just at hands of the respondents herein and others as well as for the misbehavior of the respondents with the petitioner and others here, she moved the high court under article 226 with in nature of the habeas corpus for the production of her husband's body of Rajakannu and for compensation. Four children were born to daily wage agricultural laborers Parvathi and Rajakannu.

On spurious grounds, the police detained them. And the police were severely beaten by the police. Eventually the court cross-examined high witnesses with the support of B.Perumalswamy, an officer belonging to the Indian police service, and who is holding the office of the Inspector General Police took up the investigation and recorded the witnesses for the prosecution. He submitted the report to the court after Rajakannu was found dead at the police station. It was believed that the body ought to be buried nearby if the missing person had perished while being held in captivity. After a thirteen-year legal battle, the court determined that Rajakannu died in custody, and the accused police officers were subsequently given a fourteen-year prison term for the murder. In India, nobody has to worry about anything.

The honorable judges of a Madras High Court went above and beyond the call of responsibility to uphold the rule of law. Similar judicial rulings over time have led to changes in criminal investigation procedures. However, the ruling in Rajakannu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. is a typical illustration of how the court acted quickly to seek justice for those who had been the victim of police abuse. An element can never be destroyed, in actuality. Even if a case is lost, the truth will always win out.

Conclusion
This case was filed by Parvathi, a tribal woman. she moved high court under article 226 in the nature of the habeas corpus for the produce of her husband body of Rajakannu and for compensation as a consequence of the alleged detention, injuries and disappearance of Rajakannu at the hands of the respondents herein and others as well as for the misbehavior of the respondents with the petitioner and others here Parvathi and Rajakannu was daily wage agricultural laborers having four children's the police arrested them on false allegation. And the police were severely beaten by the police.

Eventually the court cross-examined high witnesses with the support of B.Perumalswamy, an officer belonging to the Indian police service, and who is holding the office of the Inspector General Police took up the investigation and recorded the witnesses for the prosecution. He submitted the report to the court after Rajakannu was found dead at the police station. It was suspected that in case the missing person died while in custody, the body should have been disposed of in the nearby area. After a thirteen-year legal battle the court adjudicated that this was a case of custodial death and then accused police officials were sentenced to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment for the murder of Rajakannu.

Any person in India lives without any fear. The Hon'ble judges of the madras high court not only upheld the rule of law, but also exhibited empathy beyond the call of duty. Over the years, reforms in criminal investigations have been brought about because of similar judicial decisions. The judgment in Rajakannu Vs state Tamil Nadu and Ors however stands as a classic example of court's prompt intervention to secure justice to the victims of police brutality. The truth is an element is never destroyed. A proceeding may be lost but the truth will always triumph.