{
 "record_id": "CW-2006-0023",
 "status": "current",
 "merged_id": "CWC-0909",
 "alias_merged_ids": [],
 "display_title": "Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs Delhi Armed Police Constable",
 "display_title_redacted": "Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs Delhi Armed Police Constable",
 "state": "Delhi",
 "district": "Central Delhi",
 "district_at_time": null,
 "city_town": "Delhi",
 "police_station_or_unit": "Vijay Ghat Armoury, Delhi Armed Police",
 "court": "Supreme Court of India",
 "court_as_verified": "Supreme Court of India",
 "bench": null,
 "case_title": "Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs Delhi Armed Police Constable",
 "case_number": "Civil Appeal No. 7488 of 2004",
 "citation": "(2006) 4 SCC 265",
 "judges": [
  "S. B. Sinha",
  "P. P. Naolekar"
 ],
 "judgment_date": "2006-04-05",
 "date_precision": "day",
 "judgment_year": 2006,
 "incident_date": "1997-06-22",
 "incident_year": 1997,
 "category": "Other",
 "admin_category": "misconduct",
 "admin_subcategory": "other",
 "subcategory": "other",
 "subcategory_display": "other",
 "protest_override_heuristic": false,
 "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld",
 "sections": [
  "Constitution Art. 311(2)(b)",
  "Evidence Act s.25",
  "Evidence Act s.26",
  "CrPC s.162",
  "Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1987 r.12"
 ],
 "officers": [
  {
   "name": null,
   "rank": "Constable",
   "role": "held_liable",
   "unit": "Delhi Armed Police, Delhi Police",
   "publish_grade": "unnamed",
   "gate_reasons": [
    "ledger:no_row",
    "key2:no_row"
   ],
   "ledger_role": null,
   "key2": null,
   "key2_agy": null,
   "key2_claude": null,
   "key2_union": null,
   "key2_gemapi": null,
   "key2_openrouter": null,
   "key2_gpt56": null,
   "grok": null,
   "jev_risk": null,
   "jev_p_culpable": null,
   "key2_gpt": null,
   "later_outcome": null,
   "name_public": null,
   "display": "Constable, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi Police"
  }
 ],
 "officer_count": 1,
 "victims": [],
 "victims_redacted": null,
 "anonymised": false,
 "victim_count": 0,
 "sentence_type": "dismissal",
 "sentence_max_years": null,
 "compensation_inr": null,
 "force": "state_police",
 "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353031/",
 "secondary_sources": [
  "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/658935/commissioner-police-new-delhi-vs-narender-singh/",
  "https://bnblegal.com/landmark/commissioner-police-new-delhi-v-narender-singh/"
 ],
 "summary": "The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. [name withheld], a Delhi Armed Police constable enrolled in 1994, was implicated by co-accused confessions and his own custodial confession in the theft of two revolvers and a pistol from the Vijay Ghat Armoury while on sentry duty on the night of 22-23 June 1997; he was discharged in the criminal case for want of evidence beyond confessions. The Deputy Commissioner of Police dismissed him without enquiry under the Article 311(2)(b) proviso, but the CAT and the Delhi High Court set the dismissal aside. The Supreme Court held that criminal discharge does not bar departmental action and that Evidence Act Sections 25-26 do not apply to disciplinary proceedings, set aside the Tribunal and High Court judgments, and restored the dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.",
 "summary_verified": "[name withheld], a Delhi Armed Police constable enrolled in 1994, was implicated by co-accused confessions and his own custodial confession in the theft of two revolvers and a pistol from the Vijay Ghat Armoury while on sentry duty on the night of 22-23 June 1997; he was discharged in the criminal case for want of evidence beyond confessions. The Deputy Commissioner of Police dismissed him without enquiry under the Article 311(2)(b) proviso, but the CAT and the Delhi High Court set the dismissal aside. The Supreme Court held that criminal discharge does not bar departmental action and that Evidence Act Sections 25-26 do not apply to disciplinary proceedings, set aside the Tribunal and High Court judgments, and restored the dismissal.",
 "court_quote": "The fact that the respondent as an accused in the aforementioned case made a confession and had pointed out the place wherefrom he allegedly had stolen two revolvers and one pistol, has, thus, not been disputed.",
 "court_quote_para": "19",
 "confidence": "high",
 "verdict": "accept",
 "verdict_note": "SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; dismissal of DAP constable for armoury theft restored.",
 "verification_status": "V2",
 "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported",
 "tier_badge": "Externally reported",
 "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded",
 "tier_history": [
  "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded"
 ],
 "allegations": [
  {
   "category": "Other",
   "primary": true,
   "position": "Material fact supported",
   "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.",
   "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation"
  }
 ],
 "institutional_response": [
  {
   "date": "2006-04-05",
   "action_type": "Order issued",
   "status": "Concluded",
   "authority": "Supreme Court of India",
   "independence": "External",
   "legal_effect": "Binding",
   "description": "The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.",
   "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only",
   "source": "(2006) 4 SCC 265",
   "recheck": "Not yet re-checked."
  }
 ],
 "later_proceedings": [],
 "final_outcome_url": null,
 "followup_history": [
  {
   "date": "2026-09-19",
   "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass",
   "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)",
   "result": "holds",
   "corrections_applied": [
    "court_quote_para"
   ]
  }
 ],
 "followup_status": "checked",
 "last_checked": "2026-09-19",
 "link_checked_per_url": [
  {
   "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353031/",
   "link_checked": null
  },
  {
   "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/658935/commissioner-police-new-delhi-vs-narender-singh/",
   "link_checked": null
  },
  {
   "url": "https://bnblegal.com/landmark/commissioner-police-new-delhi-v-narender-singh/",
   "link_checked": null
  }
 ],
 "source_assessment": {
  "established": null,
  "basis": null
 },
 "v3_basis": null,
 "publication_basis": null,
 "reviews": [],
 "retracted": {
  "is_retracted": false
 },
 "fidelity_checked": true,
 "verified_by": [
  "chunk-76"
 ],
 "merged_case_id": "GAP2-58-002",
 "officers_named_public": 0,
 "record_flag": null,
 "service": "police",
 "watch": "babuwatch"
}