Acquittal alone does not establish false implication or a human-rights violation.

The petitioners, police personnel, challenged the State Human Rights Commission’s order directing the State to pay ₹1,00,000 to Angusamy’s son, Raja, and to recover portions of that amount from the petitioners.

The complaint alleged that the police, motivated by a dispute over payment for paint and a refusal to supply paint free of cost, falsely implicated Raja in a prohibition case and physically assaulted and stripped him at the police station.

The complainant and two other witnesses gave evidence before the Commission; the police personnel filed counters and examined a defence witness.

The High Court called for and examined the Commission’s records.

Whether the material before the Commission sufficiently established that Raja was physically assaulted while in police custody.

Whether the alleged police motive and false implication of Raja were established so as to support a finding of human-rights violation and an award of compensation.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to review the Commission’s order.

It applied the principle that a finding of human-rights violation and consequential compensation must be supported by acceptable material; an acquittal in a criminal case, by itself, does not establish that the case was falsely foisted, and false implication must be independently proved.

The petitioners referred to Section 65B of the Evidence Act in challenging the photographs and CCTV footage, but the Court’s decision rested on the insufficiency of the evidence on record.

The Court found no document or other material establishing physical injury to Raja.

The photographs showed him at the hardware store, but, without scientific evidence confirming their date and time, they did not prove the alleged assault or its circumstances.

The oral evidence was not supported by bills or other documents substantiating the alleged paint dispute or the claimed unpaid amount.

Further, the alleged acquittal judgment was not produced before the Commission, and acquittal alone could not establish false implication.

The Court therefore held that the evidence did not support the Commission’s finding of a human-rights violation.

All three writ petitions were allowed; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.