Sri Lanka Law Reports
 3 Sri L.R
VELU ARASADEVIvPREMATILAKA AND OTHERSSUPREME COURTFERNANDO, J.
SC FR 401/2001JANUARY 24, 2002
Constitution – Article 126 – Fundamental Rights – Articles 11, 13 (1) – Rapedby Police/Army personnel at check point – Violation of fundamental rights byexecutive action ?
The petitioner was stopped at a check point and allowed to go home. Laterrespondents (Police/Army Officers) had come home and ordered her toaccompany them to the Maradana Police Station. She was not taken to thePolice Station, but was forcibly taken to a place behind the check point andraped.
The petitioner complained of infringement of her fundamental rightsguaranteed by Articles 11 and 13 (1) of the Constitution.
It is clear that the petitioner was raped by one or more persons near thecheck point while they were on duty at the check point and that she wassubjected to an unlawful restraint on liberty
The State is responsible for the infringement of her fundamental rights.
Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 11 and 13 (1) have beeninfringed by executive action.
APPLICATION under Article 126 of the Constitution.
A. H. H. Perera with Ms. M. C. Morawaka for petitioner.
Ranjan Suwadaratne with S. T. Gunawardane for 3rd respondent.
Riyaz Hamza SC for the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents.
Velu Arasadevi v Prematilaka and Others(Fernando, J.)
January 24, 2002FERNANDO, J.
The petitioner complains of the infringement of her fundamental 01rights guaranteed by Articles 11 and 13 (1) of the Constitution.
The petitioner states that soon after 11.00 p.m. on 23.06.2001,she was stopped at a check point at which the 1st and 2ndrespondents were on duty. She states that at about 3.00 a.m. on
the 1st and 3rd respondents came to the residenceand ordered her to accompany them to the Maradana PoliceStation. She accordingly went with them. She was not taken to theMaradana Police Station, but was forcibly taken to a place behindthe check point, away from the main road. There she was raped by 10more than one person, despite her pleas that she wasmenstruating. Mr. Hamza is directed to submit a copy of themedical report submitted by Dr. Peiris of the Department ofForensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, the original of which wasshown to us.
Mr. Hamza SC states that the Attorney-General will take stepsto file criminal proceedings against the 1st, 2nd and 3rdrespondents and that they have been informed that the Attorney-General will not appear for them. The 1st and 2nd respondents arenevertheless absent and unrepresented despite notices having 20been sent to them.
In these circumstances, it appears to us that any determinationas to the part played by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in regardto the rape of the petitioner would prejudice the criminal trial.
It is clear from the petitioner’s version that she was raped by oneor more persons near the check point while they were on duty atthe check point, and that she was subjected to an unlawful restrainton liberty. The State is therefore responsible for the infringement ofher fundamental rights. We hold that the petitioner’s fundamentalright under Articles 11 and 13 (1) have been infringed by executive 30action.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 3 Sri L.R
We award the petitioner a sum of Rs. 150,000.00 ascompensation and costs payable by the State on or before
This is without prejudice to her civil rights against thewrongdoers personally.
ISMAIL, J.-I agree.
WIGNESWARAN, J.-I agree.
VELU ARASADEVI v. PREMATILAKA AND OTHERS