{ "state": "Rajasthan", "slug": "rajasthan", "count": 41, "url": "https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/state/rajasthan", "cases": [ { "record_id": "CW-1974-0002", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1079", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector vs The State", "display_title_redacted": "Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector vs The State", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Jaipur", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Jaipur", "police_station_or_unit": "Railway Protection Force Post, Western Railway, Jaipur", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector vs The State", "case_number": "Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1971", "citation": "(1974) WLN 324", "judges": [ "K.D. Sharma" ], "judgment_date": "1974-02-11", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 1974, "incident_date": "1969-04-22", "incident_year": 1969, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 161", "PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d) r/w s.5(2)" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Sub-Inspector", "role": "convicted", "unit": "Railway Protection Force Post, Western Railway, Jaipur", "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": "Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force Post, Western Railway, Jaipur" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Jaipur man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "mixed", "sentence_max_years": 1, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "railway", "primary_source_url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/216125/om-prakash-mathur-vs-the-state/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. RPF Sub-Inspector, in charge of the RPF post at Western Railway, Jaipur, demanded Rs 1,000 from shunter a Jaipur man — Rs 500 immediately — as the price for releasing him on bail in railway-property case Crime No. 9 of 1969 in April 1969. The Anti-Corruption Department laid a trap with marked currency, recovered the notes from the appellant's pocket, and the Special Judge, Jaipur convicted him under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 500 fine. The court found both charges proved beyond reasonable doubt, held the sentence was not severe with no mitigating circumstances, dismissed the appeal, cancelled his bail, and directed the District Magistrate, Jaipur to have him arrested to serve the sentence.", "summary_verified": "RPF Sub-Inspector, in charge of the RPF post at Western Railway, Jaipur, demanded Rs 1,000 from shunter a Jaipur man — Rs 500 immediately — as the price for releasing him on bail in railway-property case Crime No. 9 of 1969 in April 1969. The Anti-Corruption Department laid a trap with marked currency, recovered the notes from the appellant's pocket, and the Special Judge, Jaipur convicted him under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 500 fine. The court found both charges proved beyond reasonable doubt, held the sentence was not severe with no mitigating circumstances, dismissed the appeal, cancelled his bail, and directed the District Magistrate, Jaipur to have him arrested to serve the sentence.", "court_quote": "The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds.", "court_quote_para": "14", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Judgment text verified; RPF Sub-Inspector's trap-case bribery conviction and 1-year sentence upheld.", "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": null, "action_type": "Conviction", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation", "source": "(1974) WLN 324", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "1974-02-11", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)", "source": "(1974) WLN 324", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/216125/om-prakash-mathur-vs-the-state/", "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-95" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-118-003", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-1977-0001", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0724", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "State of Rajasthan vs Pali Police Head Constable", "display_title_redacted": "State of Rajasthan vs Pali Police Head Constable", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Pali", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Pali", "police_station_or_unit": "Reserve Police Lines, Pali", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "State of Rajasthan vs Pali Police Head Constable", "case_number": "Special Appeal against S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 535 of 1966", "citation": "1977 WLN 645", "judges": [ "S.N. Modi" ], "judgment_date": "1977-10-26", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 1977, "incident_date": "1953-02-07", "incident_year": 1953, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Head Constable", "unit": "Reserve Police Lines, Pali", "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": "Head Constable, Reserve Police Lines, Pali" } ], "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/1786114/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Head Constable, working as Accounts Clerk at Pali police lines, refused on 7 February 1953 to let the Additional SP verify the cash box, misbehaved with the officers, and behaved insolently at the SP's residence until the SDM was called. After a fresh departmental enquiry he was dismissed in September 1960, and a Single Judge quashed the dismissal in 1969. The Division Bench held only the gross-insubordination charge proved but grave enough in a police employee to sustain dismissal, reversed the Single Judge, and restored the dismissal. No civilian victim is involved; this is a departmental disciplinary matter. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "Head Constable, working as Accounts Clerk at Pali police lines, refused on 7 February 1953 to let the Additional SP verify the cash box, misbehaved with the officers, and behaved insolently at the SP's residence until the SDM was called. After a fresh departmental enquiry he was dismissed in September 1960, and a Single Judge quashed the dismissal in 1969. The Division Bench held only the gross-insubordination charge proved but grave enough in a police employee to sustain dismissal, reversed the Single Judge, and restored the dismissal. No civilian victim is involved; this is a departmental disciplinary matter.", "court_quote": "We accordingly reverse the judgment under appeal and hold that the order of dismissal of the respondent dated September 7, 1960 passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police was not liable to be quashed.", "court_quote_para": "22", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "DB judgment verified; head constable dismissal for gross insubordination restored (no civilian victim).", "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": "1977-10-26", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "1977 WLN 645", "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/1786114/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": false, "verified_by": [ "chunk-52" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP13-001", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-1980-0003", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0725", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "State of Rajasthan vs Rajgarh Police Head Constable", "display_title_redacted": "State of Rajasthan vs Rajgarh Police Head Constable", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Alwar", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Rajgarh", "police_station_or_unit": "Rajgarh Police Station, Alwar", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "State of Rajasthan vs Rajgarh Police Head Constable", "case_number": "D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 1972 with S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 535 of 1972", "citation": "1980 WLN 17", "judges": [ "P.D. Kudal" ], "judgment_date": "1980-01-11", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 1980, "incident_date": "1965-06-25", "incident_year": 1965, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 409" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Head Constable", "role": "convicted", "unit": "Rajgarh Police Station, Alwar", "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": "Head Constable, Rajgarh Police Station, Alwar" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Station House Officer", "role": "acquitted_trial_court_appeal_abated_on_death", "unit": "Rajgarh Police Station, Alwar", "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": "Station House Officer, Rajgarh Police Station, Alwar" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "acquitted_state_appeal_dismissed", "unit": "Rajgarh Police Station, Alwar", "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, Rajgarh Police Station, Alwar" } ], "officer_count": 3, "victims": [ { "age": null, "gender": "male", "name": null, "descriptor": "Rajgarh man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "mixed", "sentence_max_years": 0.5, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/239746/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. A Rajgarh man, wanted in a kidnapping case, was detained at Rajgarh police station from 25 June 1965; the SHO, head constable and constable took his cycle, Rs.200 and other articles without entering them in the arrest memo, and the SHO allegedly beat him on the night of 29-30 June to extort more money, leaving 17 contusions. The Special Judge convicted only Head Constable under Section 409 IPC and acquitted the other two. The Division Bench confirmed the 6 months rigorous imprisonment plus Rs.500 fine and ordered his surrender, dismissed the State appeal on conspiracy, hurt and corruption charges for want of evidence, and, the SHO having died, passed no verdict on the beating while deprecating third-degree methods.", "summary_verified": "A Rajgarh man, wanted in a kidnapping case, was detained at Rajgarh police station from 25 June 1965; the SHO, head constable and constable took his cycle, Rs.200 and other articles without entering them in the arrest memo, and the SHO allegedly beat him on the night of 29-30 June to extort more money, leaving 17 contusions. The Special Judge convicted only Head Constable under Section 409 IPC and acquitted the other two. The Division Bench confirmed the 6 months rigorous imprisonment plus Rs.500 fine and ordered his surrender, dismissed the State appeal on conspiracy, hurt and corruption charges for want of evidence, and, the SHO having died, passed no verdict on the beating while deprecating third-degree methods.", "court_quote": "There is absolutely no merit in the appeal filed by [name withheld]. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.", "court_quote_para": "15", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "DB judgment verified; head constable s.409 conviction (6 months RI + fine) confirmed.", "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": null, "action_type": "Conviction", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation", "source": "1980 WLN 17", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "1980-01-11", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)", "source": "1980 WLN 17", "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", "officers" ] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/239746/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": false, "verified_by": [ "chunk-52" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP13-002", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-1986-0003", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1078", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Churu Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Churu Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Churu", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Churu", "police_station_or_unit": "Police Line, Churu", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Churu Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1096 of 1985", "citation": "(1986) WLN 550", "judges": [ "Ashok Kumar Mathur" ], "judgment_date": "1986-08-29", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 1986, "incident_date": "1981-05-28", "incident_year": 1981, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 307", "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16", "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 19(2)" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Police Line, Churu", "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, Police Line, Churu" } ], "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://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/194189/vinod-kumar-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable of the Rajasthan Police challenged his removal from service after remaining absent from the Police Line, Churu from 28 May 1981 to 4 February 1982 and failing to appear before the enquiry officer despite repeated summons. He pleaded that his father had been attacked and hospitalised, that a land dispute had led to his implication in a Section 307 IPC case, and that no enquiry notice was served on him. The court found that he had deliberately avoided service and the enquiry despite knowledge of the charge-sheet, calling such conduct grossly indisciplined and least expected of a member of a disciplined force. It held that reasons for dispensing with a Rule 16 enquiry under Rule 19(2) of the 1958 Rules could be contained in the final order, and dismissed the writ petition, keeping the removal in force. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "Constable of the Rajasthan Police challenged his removal from service after remaining absent from the Police Line, Churu from 28 May 1981 to 4 February 1982 and failing to appear before the enquiry officer despite repeated summons. He pleaded that his father had been attacked and hospitalised, that a land dispute had led to his implication in a Section 307 IPC case, and that no enquiry notice was served on him. The court found that he had deliberately avoided service and the enquiry despite knowledge of the charge-sheet, calling such conduct grossly indisciplined and least expected of a member of a disciplined force. It held that reasons for dispensing with a Rule 16 enquiry under Rule 19(2) of the 1958 Rules could be contained in the final order, and dismissed the writ petition, keeping the removal in force.", "court_quote": "It is least expected from a disciplined force official to avoid service of notice and avoid to appear before the Enquiry Officer for one reason or the other and such conduct cannot be lightly condoned.", "court_quote_para": "5", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Judgment text verified; police constable's removal for wilful absence upheld, writ dismissed.", "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": "1986-08-29", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(1986) WLN 550", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/194189/vinod-kumar-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/", "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-95" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-118-002", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-1994-0007", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1077", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Salumber Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Salumber Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Udaipur", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Salumber", "police_station_or_unit": "Police Station Sarada", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Salumber Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "case_number": "D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 103 of 1994", "citation": "(1994) 1 RLW 411 : (1994) 1 WLN 281", "judges": [ "P.K. Palli", "J.R. Chopra" ], "judgment_date": "1994-04-08", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 1994, "incident_date": "1983-11-19", "incident_year": 1983, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 452", "IPC 323", "IPC 427" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Police Station Sarada, Udaipur", "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, Police Station Sarada, Udaipur" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Salumber man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/214572/laxman-lal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/217259/laxman-lal-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. On 19 November 1983 Constable of Police Station Sarada entered the quarters of ASI with a knife, tried to throttle and beat him, and threatened to kill him, leading to a criminal case under Sections 452, 323 and 427 IPC alongside a departmental enquiry. The disciplinary authority imposed removal/dismissal on 31 January 1985, affirmed in departmental appeal in October 1986, while the criminal trial convicted in 1987 but the appellate court acquitted in August 1988 for want of corroboration. The Single Judge dismissed the writ on 24 January 1994, holding simultaneous proceedings lawful and the dismissal on preponderance of probabilities unaffected by the benefit-of-doubt acquittal. The Division Bench agreed with that reasoning and dismissed the special appeal, so the dismissal stands.", "summary_verified": "On 19 November 1983 Constable of Police Station Sarada entered the quarters of ASI with a knife, tried to throttle and beat him, and threatened to kill him, leading to a criminal case under Sections 452, 323 and 427 IPC alongside a departmental enquiry. The disciplinary authority imposed removal/dismissal on 31 January 1985, affirmed in departmental appeal in October 1986, while the criminal trial convicted in 1987 but the appellate court acquitted in August 1988 for want of corroboration. The Single Judge dismissed the writ on 24 January 1994, holding simultaneous proceedings lawful and the dismissal on preponderance of probabilities unaffected by the benefit-of-doubt acquittal. The Division Bench agreed with that reasoning and dismissed the special appeal, so the dismissal stands.", "court_quote": "We are in respectful agreement to the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.", "court_quote_para": "9", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Constable dismissal for knife attack on ASI upheld on preponderance despite later criminal acquittal.", "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": "1994-04-08", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(1994) 1 RLW 411 : (1994) 1 WLN 281", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/214572/laxman-lal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/217259/laxman-lal-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/", "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-94" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-118-001", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-1995-0004", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0322", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Ami Lal and Ors. vs State of Rajasthan", "display_title_redacted": "Ami Lal and Ors. vs State of Rajasthan", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Churu", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Sidhmukh", "police_station_or_unit": "Sidhmukh Police Outpost, Rajgarh Police Station", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Ami Lal and Ors. vs State of Rajasthan", "case_number": null, "citation": "1996 Cri LJ 1585", "judges": [ "Rajendra Saxena" ], "judgment_date": "1995-07-03", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 1995, "incident_date": "1977-05-05", "incident_year": 1977, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 395", "IPC 353", "IPC 224", "IPC 109" ], "officers": [ { "name": "Ami Lal", "rank": "Head Constable", "unit": "Sidhmukh Police Outpost, Rajgarh Police Station", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.06, "jev_p_culpable": 0.96, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Ami Lal", "display": "Ami Lal (Head Constable)" }, { "name": "Dayanand", "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Sidhmukh Police Outpost, Rajgarh Police Station", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.06, "jev_p_culpable": 0.96, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Dayanand", "display": "Dayanand (Constable)" } ], "officer_count": 2, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Sidhmukh man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "imprisonment", "sentence_max_years": 4.5, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1280281/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction and sentences of Head Constable Ami Lal and Constable Dayanand of Sidhmukh Outpost (PS Rajgarh, Churu). After demanding a bribe of Rs. 1,000 from complainant, the officers were trapped by an Anti-Corruption Department raid party on 5 May 1977. To evade capture and destroy evidence, the officers instigated an armed mob of villagers to attack the trap team, forcefully snatch back the marked bribe notes, and facilitate Ami Lal escape from lawful arrest. Affirming the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Churu, the High Court refused probation to the police officers and maintained their sentences of 4.5 years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 395, 353, and 224 read with Section 109 IPC. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction and sentences of Head Constable Ami Lal and Constable Dayanand of Sidhmukh Outpost (PS Rajgarh, Churu). After demanding a bribe of Rs. 1,000 from complainant O. P., the officers were trapped by an Anti-Corruption Department raid party on 5 May 1977. To evade capture and destroy evidence, the officers instigated an armed mob of villagers to attack the trap team, forcefully snatch back the marked bribe notes, and facilitate Ami Lal escape from lawful arrest. Affirming the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Churu, the High Court refused probation to the police officers and maintained their sentences of 4.5 years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 395, 353, and 224 read with Section 109 IPC.", "court_quote": "Hence for the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and the conviction and sentence of the appellants Ami Lal, H. C. and Dayanand, Constable are hereby maintained. The learned Sessions Judge, Chur shall immediately issue non-bailable warrants against these appellants to secure their arrest and send them to jail to serve out their sentences.", "court_quote_para": "34", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan High Court upheld conviction and 4.5-year RI sentence of Head Constable Ami Lal and Constable Dayanand for instigating mob attack/dacoity to foil an anti-corruption trap and escaping custody.", "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": null, "action_type": "Conviction", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation", "source": "1996 Cri LJ 1585", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "1995-07-03", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)", "source": "1996 Cri LJ 1585", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1280281/", "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-11" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-004", "officers_named_public": 2, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2000-0004", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0321", "alias_merged_ids": [ "CWC-1428" ], "display_title": "Kuchaman City Man vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.", "display_title_redacted": "Kuchaman City Man vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Didwana-Kuchaman", "district_at_time": "Nagaur", "city_town": "Kuchaman City", "police_station_or_unit": "Kuchaman City Police Station", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Kuchaman City Man vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.", "case_number": null, "citation": "2000 Cri LJ 4484", "judges": [ "B.J. Shethna" ], "judgment_date": "2000-05-15", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2000, "incident_date": "1997-06-17", "incident_year": 1997, "category": "Custodial death", "admin_category": "brutality", "admin_subcategory": "custodial_death", "subcategory": "custodial_death", "subcategory_display": "custodial death", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "adverse_finding_compensation", "sections": [ "Constitution of India Art. 226", "IPC 302", "IPC 342", "IPC 323", "IPC 34" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Station House Officer", "unit": "Kuchaman City Police Station", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2:no_row" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "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": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Station House Officer, Kuchaman City Police Station" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Kuchaman City Police Station", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2:no_row" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "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": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Constable, Kuchaman City Police Station" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Kuchaman City Police Station", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2:no_row" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "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": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Constable, Kuchaman City Police Station" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Kuchaman City Police Station", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2:no_row" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "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": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Constable, Kuchaman City Police Station" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Kuchaman City Police Station", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2:no_row" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "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": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Constable, Kuchaman City Police Station" } ], "officer_count": 5, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": 25, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Kuchaman City man, age 25" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "compensation_only", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": 300000, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/814987/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/18545/18545_2013_Judgement_15-Sep-2017.pdf", "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609a491e4b01497113f6e2a" ], "summary": "The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed an Article 226 writ petition filed by Mst. Madina, the 23-year-old widow of a Kuchaman City man, who died in police custody within three hours of being detained on 17 June 1997 for alleged theft of a guar gum bag. The post-mortem examination revealed that a Kuchaman City man died from haemorrhagic shock resulting from kidney injuries sustained through third-degree torture at Kuchaman City Police Station. Rejecting the State argument that disputed facts barred writ jurisdiction, the Court held that the custodial death was undisputed on record and directed the State of Rajasthan to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as interim compensation to the widow and four minor children, with directions to recover the amount proportionately from the erring police officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed an Article 226 writ petition filed by Mst. Madina, the 23-year-old widow of a Kuchaman City man, who died in police custody within three hours of being detained on 17 June 1997 for alleged theft of a guar gum bag. The post-mortem examination revealed that a Kuchaman City man died from haemorrhagic shock resulting from kidney injuries sustained through third-degree torture at Kuchaman City Police Station. Rejecting the State argument that disputed facts barred writ jurisdiction, the Court held that the custodial death was undisputed on record and directed the State of Rajasthan to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as interim compensation to the widow and four minor children, with directions to recover the amount proportionately from the erring police officers.", "court_quote": "In the light of the aforesaid, there cannot be any difficulty in coming to the prima facie conclusion that the death of a Kuchaman City man was caused by the police in its custody.", "court_quote_para": "7", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan High Court awarded Rs 3,00,000 interim compensation under Art. 226 for custodial death of a Kuchaman City man due to third-degree torture at Kuchaman City PS, recoverable from erring officers.", "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": "Custodial death", "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": "2000-05-15", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.", "disposition": "Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)", "source": "2000 Cri LJ 4484", "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" ] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/814987/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/18545/18545_2013_Judgement_15-Sep-2017.pdf", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609a491e4b01497113f6e2a", "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-11", "chunk-47" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-003", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2000-0015", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1080", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Jodhpur Police Constable vs The State of Rajasthan and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Jodhpur Police Constable vs The State of Rajasthan and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Jodhpur", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Jodhpur", "police_station_or_unit": "Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jodhpur", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Jodhpur Police Constable vs The State of Rajasthan and Others", "case_number": "Civil Special Appeal No. 407 of 1999", "citation": "(2000) 4 RLW 344", "judges": [ "S.K. Garg", "B.J. Shethna" ], "judgment_date": "2000-09-01", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2000, "incident_date": "1987-08-30", "incident_year": 1987, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jodhpur", "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, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jodhpur" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "female", "descriptor": "Jodhpur woman" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/560696/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/200992/mani-kumar-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/", "https://sooperkanoon.com/case/767496/mani-kumar-vs-state-rajasthan-ors" ], "summary": "Police Constable was removed from service after a Rule 16 enquiry found that on the night of 30 August 1987 he misbehaved with a fellow constable's wife, was found fully drunk at Sadar Bazar police station, Jodhpur, fled, and produced a forged M.G. Hospital medical certificate to cover absence from 25 to 30 August 1987. He contended that non-supply of the enquiry report, non-speaking orders, and an excessive penalty vitiated the removal. The Division Bench found the enquiry fair with full opportunity of cross-examination, held that mere non-supply of the report without shown prejudice does not vitiate removal, and called the orders speaking orders. It held removal rather than dismissal was lenient given charges of a very serious nature, and dismissed the special appeal.", "summary_verified": "Police Constable was removed from service after a Rule 16 enquiry found that on the night of 30 August 1987 he misbehaved with a fellow constable's wife, was found fully drunk at Sadar Bazar police station, Jodhpur, fled, and produced a forged M.G. Hospital medical certificate to cover absence from 25 to 30 August 1987. He contended that non-supply of the enquiry report, non-speaking orders, and an excessive penalty vitiated the removal. The Division Bench found the enquiry fair with full opportunity of cross-examination, held that mere non-supply of the report without shown prejudice does not vitiate removal, and called the orders speaking orders. It held removal rather than dismissal was lenient given charges of a very serious nature, and dismissed the special appeal.", "court_quote": "The charges levelled against the appellant were of very serious nature. He was a constable in the police department who was found to be mis-behaving with the wife of his neighbour constable.", "court_quote_para": "5", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Judgment text verified; constable's removal for drunken misbehaviour, absence and forged certificate upheld.", "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": "2000-09-01", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(2000) 4 RLW 344", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/560696/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/200992/mani-kumar-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://sooperkanoon.com/case/767496/mani-kumar-vs-state-rajasthan-ors", "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-95" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-119-001", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2001-0012", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1081", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "display_title_redacted": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": null, "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": null, "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "case_number": "Civil Special Appeal No. 72 of 2001", "citation": "(2001) 2 RLW 819", "judges": [ "H.R. Panwar", "B.J. Shethna" ], "judgment_date": "2001-01-25", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2001, "incident_date": "1997-06-02", "incident_year": 1997, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Rajasthan 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, Rajasthan 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/137789/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/212008/navratan-mal-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/", "https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758820/navratan-mal-vs-state-rajasthan-ors" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Police Constable, selected in December 1996 and on duty from February 1997, left duty on 2 June 1997 without intimation or leave and stayed continuously absent until 10 November 1997 — 162 days — ignoring a show-cause notice to report immediately, with a prior 43-day absence on record. He pleaded his mother's serious illness and ignorance of rules as a novice, and contended termination was disproportionate. The Division Bench found these unsubstantiated lame excuses with no medical certificate produced, held that 162 days' absence without leave in a disciplined police force is serious misconduct for which no order except termination could be passed, and dismissed the special appeal.", "summary_verified": "Police Constable, selected in December 1996 and on duty from February 1997, left duty on 2 June 1997 without intimation or leave and stayed continuously absent until 10 November 1997 — 162 days — ignoring a show-cause notice to report immediately, with a prior 43-day absence on record. He pleaded his mother's serious illness and ignorance of rules as a novice, and contended termination was disproportionate. The Division Bench found these unsubstantiated lame excuses with no medical certificate produced, held that 162 days' absence without leave in a disciplined police force is serious misconduct for which no order except termination could be passed, and dismissed the special appeal.", "court_quote": "If he was in the other department, then there would have been a different consideration but the appellant was in police department which is a disciplined force where such along absence of 162 days from duly without any leave should be viewed as a serious mis-conduct for which no other order except the order of termination could be passed.", "court_quote_para": "2", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Judgment text verified; constable's termination for 162 days' absence without leave upheld.", "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": "2001-01-25", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(2001) 2 RLW 819", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137789/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/212008/navratan-mal-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758820/navratan-mal-vs-state-rajasthan-ors", "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-95" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-119-002", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2008-0014", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0327", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Magha Puri vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "display_title_redacted": "Magha Puri vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Bikaner", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Bikaner", "police_station_or_unit": "Naya Shehar Police Station", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jodhpur", "case_title": "Magha Puri vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1614/1996", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Vineet Kothari" ], "judgment_date": "2008-11-11", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2008, "incident_date": "1990-01-01", "incident_year": 1990, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 498A", "IPC 406", "IPC 420" ], "officers": [ { "name": "Magha Puri", "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Naya Shehar Police Station", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "yes", "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.04, "jev_p_culpable": 0.95, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Magha Puri", "display": "Magha Puri (Constable)" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Bikaner man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/962936/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The Principal Seat of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a writ petition filed by dismissed Constable Magha Puri of Naya Shehar Police Station, Bikaner, upholding his dismissal from service. A departmental inquiry had found Magha Puri guilty of demanding and taking an illegal gratification of Rs. 40,000 from complainant [name withheld] and others to compromise and settle a pending criminal case registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The High Court affirmed the findings of the inquiry officer based on testimony of independent witnesses and held that accepting a bribe to settle a criminal case was grave misconduct warranting the punishment of dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Principal Seat of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a writ petition filed by dismissed Constable Magha Puri of Naya Shehar Police Station, Bikaner, upholding his dismissal from service. A departmental inquiry had found Magha Puri guilty of demanding and taking an illegal gratification of Rs. 40,000 from complainant [name withheld] and others to compromise and settle a pending criminal case registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The High Court affirmed the findings of the inquiry officer based on testimony of independent witnesses and held that accepting a bribe to settle a criminal case was grave misconduct warranting the punishment of dismissal.", "court_quote": "Thus, this Court finds no ground to quash the impugned orders passed by disciplinary authority and appellate authority awarding punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition has no force and same is accordingly dismissed.", "court_quote_para": "12", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan High Court upheld the dismissal of Constable Magha Puri for demanding and accepting a Rs. 40,000 bribe to settle a criminal case.", "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": "2008-11-11", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1614/1996", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/962936/", "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-11" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-002", "officers_named_public": 1, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2008-0015", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0330", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Barmer Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan (with Kishore Singh vs State; [name withheld] vs State)", "display_title_redacted": "Barmer Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan (with Kishore Singh vs State; [name withheld] vs State)", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Barmer", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Barmer", "police_station_or_unit": "Sadar Police Station, Barmer", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jodhpur", "case_title": "Barmer Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan (with Kishore Singh vs State; [name withheld] vs State)", "case_number": "S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 31/2006 with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 235/2006 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 70/2006", "citation": null, "judges": [ "A.M. Kapadia", "Deo Narayan Thanvi" ], "judgment_date": "2008-11-19", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2008, "incident_date": "1994-02-01", "incident_year": 1994, "category": "Custodial torture", "admin_category": "brutality", "admin_subcategory": "custodial_torture", "subcategory": "custodial_torture", "subcategory_display": "custodial torture", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 326", "IPC 342" ], "officers": [ { "name": "Kishore Singh", "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Police Station Sadar, Barmer", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "yes", "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.46, "jev_p_culpable": 0.92, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Kishore Singh", "display": "Kishore Singh (Constable)" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Station House Officer", "unit": "Police Station Sadar, Barmer", "role": "named_only", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "ledger:acquitted_in_this_judgment", "key2:no", "key2_union:no", "key2_openrouter:no" ], "ledger_role": "acquitted_in_this_judgment", "key2": "no", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "no", "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "no", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.92, "jev_p_culpable": 0.08, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": null, "name_public": null, "display": "Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Barmer" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Assistant Sub-Inspector", "unit": "Police Station Sadar, Barmer", "role": "named_only", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "ledger:acquitted_in_this_judgment", "key2:no", "key2_union:no", "key2_openrouter:no" ], "ledger_role": "acquitted_in_this_judgment", "key2": "no", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "no", "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "no", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.93, "jev_p_culpable": 0.05, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": null, "name_public": null, "display": "Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sadar, Barmer" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Barmer man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "mixed", "sentence_max_years": 4, "compensation_inr": 100000, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/999298/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur partly allowed the appeals of three policemen convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, for the February 1994 illegal confinement, beating and castration of a Barmer man, who was locked in the barrack of Sadar Police Station, Barmer for four days while Rs 30-40 thousand was demanded for his release. The Court acquitted SHO and ASI of all charges, but maintained Constable Kishore Singh conviction for grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC, reducing the life term to the period already undergone (about four years) while enhancing the fine to Rs 1 lakh payable to the injured complainant, and altering his wrongful-confinement conviction from Section 343 to Section 342 IPC with one year rigorous imprisonment concurrent. The CBI had investigated the case and the Court held custodial punishment with enhanced fine sufficient on the totality of facts. [name withheld] and [name withheld] were acquitted in this judgment, but their acquittals were later set aside by the Supreme Court in the appeal covered by a companion record of this dataset, under which their final status is convicted. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur partly allowed the appeals of three policemen convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, for the February 1994 illegal confinement, beating and castration of a Barmer man, who was locked in the barrack of Sadar Police Station, Barmer for four days while Rs 30-40 thousand was demanded for his release. The Court acquitted SHO and ASI of all charges, but maintained Constable Kishore Singh conviction for grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC, reducing the life term to the period already undergone (about four years) while enhancing the fine to Rs 1 lakh payable to the injured complainant, and altering his wrongful-confinement conviction from Section 343 to Section 342 IPC with one year rigorous imprisonment concurrent. The CBI had investigated the case and the Court held custodial punishment with enhanced fine sufficient on the totality of facts.", "court_quote": "While acquitting appellant Kishore Singh of the offences u/ss.323, 308 and 120B read with 343, 323, 384, 326 & 308 IPC, his conviction for the offence u/s.326 IPC is maintained and he is sentenced to the period already undergone, instead of life imprisonment.", "court_quote_para": "17", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan High Court maintained s.326 conviction of Constable Kishore Singh for castrating detenu [name withheld], reducing life term to period undergone (~4 years) with Rs 1 lakh fine to victim; SHO and ASI acquitted.", "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": "Custodial torture", "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": null, "action_type": "Conviction", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation", "source": "S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 31/2006 with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 235/2006 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 70/2006", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "2008-11-19", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)", "source": "S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 31/2006 with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 235/2006 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 70/2006", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/999298/", "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-11", "chunk-r07" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-005", "officers_named_public": 1, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2008-0030", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0901", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another", "display_title_redacted": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": null, "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": "Rajasthan Police Department", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another", "case_number": null, "citation": "(2009) 3 RLW 2163", "judges": [ "H.R. Panwar" ], "judgment_date": "2008-12-11", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2008, "incident_date": "1996-01-01", "incident_year": 1996, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16", "Constitution Art. 226" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Rajasthan Police Department", "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, Rajasthan Police Department" } ], "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://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/221718/heera-mani-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-another-respondent/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable voluntarily remained absent without leave, and a Rule 16 inquiry proved 57 days absence in 1996 with a record of repeated voluntary absence; the disciplinary authority terminated him on 26.10.1996 as a habitual absentee. He never filed a statutory appeal or review in his lifetime and died on 30.04.1999, after which his widow [name withheld] filed the writ. The court held inquiry procedure was followed with defence representation and no natural-justice violation, the delinquent had accepted the punishment in his lifetime, the post-death writ suffered delay and laches, and interference scope on findings and quantum is very limited. It held termination not disproportionate and dismissed the writ with no order as to costs (posting district not stated in judgment).", "summary_verified": "Constable voluntarily remained absent without leave, and a Rule 16 inquiry proved 57 days absence in 1996 with a record of repeated voluntary absence; the disciplinary authority terminated him on 26.10.1996 as a habitual absentee. He never filed a statutory appeal or review in his lifetime and died on 30.04.1999, after which his widow [name withheld] filed the writ. The court held inquiry procedure was followed with defence representation and no natural-justice violation, the delinquent had accepted the punishment in his lifetime, the post-death writ suffered delay and laches, and interference scope on findings and quantum is very limited. It held termination not disproportionate and dismissed the writ with no order as to costs (posting district not stated in judgment).", "court_quote": "It cannot be said that the punishment imposed to the delinquent police constable is disproportionate to the delinquency.", "court_quote_para": "20", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Writ verified; termination of habitually absent constable upheld on widow's petition.", "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": "2008-12-11", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(2009) 3 RLW 2163", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/221718/heera-mani-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-another-respondent/", "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-75" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP2-54-004", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2009-0019", "status": "overturned", "merged_id": "CWC-1084", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.", "display_title_redacted": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Didwana-Kuchaman", "district_at_time": "Nagaur", "city_town": "Makrana", "police_station_or_unit": "Police Station Makrana (under DSP Makrana)", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jodhpur", "case_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4155/1997", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Govind Mathur" ], "judgment_date": "2009-02-10", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2009, "incident_date": "1994-07-06", "incident_year": 1994, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "brutality", "admin_subcategory": "disproportionate_force", "subcategory": "disproportionate_force", "subcategory_display": "disproportionate force", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 451", "IPC 323", "IPC 504", "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16", "Constitution Art. 226", "Constitution Art. 227" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Rajasthan Police, Makrana", "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, Rajasthan Police, Makrana" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": null, "descriptor": "Makrana resident" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1943380/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Rajasthan Police Constable was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 on two counts: assaulting a civilian on 6 July 1994 (FIR No. 53 under Sections 451, 323 and 504 IPC) and disobeying the DSP 's order of 8 July 1994 to report at Police Station Makrana, challenging the superior to take any action. A regular inquiry examining 11 prosecution witnesses found both charges proved, leading to removal from service in December 1996, affirmed in appeal in October 1997. The court found the criminal act and gross misbehaviour toward the superior stood established on adequate evidence, held a member of a disciplined force must act cautiously and adhere to discipline, and held removal was not shockingly disproportionate. It dismissed the writ petition, sustaining the removal. Later proceedings: on 12 September 2018, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning [name withheld]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "Rajasthan Police Constable was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 on two counts: assaulting a civilian on 6 July 1994 (FIR No. 53 under Sections 451, 323 and 504 IPC) and disobeying the DSP 's order of 8 July 1994 to report at Police Station Makrana, challenging the superior to take any action. A regular inquiry examining 11 prosecution witnesses found both charges proved, leading to removal from service in December 1996, affirmed in appeal in October 1997. The court found the criminal act and gross misbehaviour toward the superior stood established on adequate evidence, held a member of a disciplined force must act cautiously and adhere to discipline, and held removal was not shockingly disproportionate. It dismissed the writ petition, sustaining the removal.", "court_quote": "From perusal of the inquiry report and order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it is apparent that the petitioner was found guilty for indulging himself in criminal act and also gross misbehaviour and indiscipline with his superior officer.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Judgment text verified; constable's removal for civilian assault and insubordination upheld.", "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": "2009-02-10", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4155/1997", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "2018-09-12", "action_type": "Order set aside", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "Later proceedings: on 12 September 2018, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning [name withheld]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand.", "disposition": "Later proceeding · Conviction not standing", "source": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124408658/", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [ { "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "date": "2018-09-12", "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124408658/", "outcome": "conviction_set_aside" } ], "final_outcome_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124408658/", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1943380/", "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-95" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-121-002", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2009-0020", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1085", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Rajasthan Woman vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "display_title_redacted": "Rajasthan Woman vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": null, "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": null, "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jodhpur", "case_title": "Rajasthan Woman vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2009", "citation": null, "judges": [ "H.R. Panwar" ], "judgment_date": "2009-02-17", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2009, "incident_date": null, "incident_year": null, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16", "Constitution Art. 226" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Rajasthan 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, Rajasthan 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/29647231/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. The widow of police Constable, appointed in February 1976, sought quashing of his removal from service for habitual wilful absence and release of retiral benefits and family pension. The inquiry officer had found the absence charges proved, the disciplinary authority removed him in March 1993 and again in January 1996 after an appellate remand, and her review before the Governor filed in July 2007 was dismissed as time-barred. The court found he was a habitual absentee who repeatedly absented without leave, held the prescribed inquiry procedure was followed and a writ court cannot set aside a well-reasoned disciplinary order on sympathy, and held the punishment was not disproportionate. It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the removal and denial of retiral benefits intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The widow of police Constable, appointed in February 1976, sought quashing of his removal from service for habitual wilful absence and release of retiral benefits and family pension. The inquiry officer had found the absence charges proved, the disciplinary authority removed him in March 1993 and again in January 1996 after an appellate remand, and her review before the Governor filed in July 2007 was dismissed as time-barred. The court found he was a habitual absentee who repeatedly absented without leave, held the prescribed inquiry procedure was followed and a writ court cannot set aside a well-reasoned disciplinary order on sympathy, and held the punishment was not disproportionate. It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the removal and denial of retiral benefits intact.", "court_quote": "In the instant case, it is evident from the inquiry report that the husband of the petitioner being police constable, an employee of the respondent Police Department in Uniform repeatedly remained absent without leave voluntarily.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Judgment text verified; deceased constable's removal for habitual absence upheld; widow's writ dismissed.", "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": "2009-02-17", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2009", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29647231/", "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-95" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-121-003", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2009-0023", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1087", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Zawar Mines Police Constable vs Union of India and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Zawar Mines Police Constable vs Union of India and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Udaipur", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Zawar Mines", "police_station_or_unit": "CISF Unit Zawar Mines", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Zawar Mines Police Constable vs Union of India and Others", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819/1998", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Govind Mathur" ], "judgment_date": "2009-04-08", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2009, "incident_date": "1996-02-29", "incident_year": 1996, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Zawar Mines, Udaipur", "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, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Zawar Mines, Udaipur" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 0, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "central_armed", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21632312/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. CISF Constable was on patrol of explosives magazines 1 to 6 at Zawar Mines, Udaipur, on the night of 28-29 February 1996, after which theft of 930 non-electric detonators was reported at about 05:20 hours. The court recorded that he was charge-sheeted in May 1996 for patrol negligence and for getting relieved without handing over physical charge, found guilty after a regular inquiry, removed from service in October 1996, and his appeal was rejected in February 1997. The court held the theft must have occurred during his duty hours since seven high-security locks could not have been broken in 20 minutes, found no fault in the disciplinary or appellate orders, and dismissed the writ, leaving the removal intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "CISF Constable was on patrol of explosives magazines 1 to 6 at Zawar Mines, Udaipur, on the night of 28-29 February 1996, after which theft of 930 non-electric detonators was reported at about 05:20 hours. The court recorded that he was charge-sheeted in May 1996 for patrol negligence and for getting relieved without handing over physical charge, found guilty after a regular inquiry, removed from service in October 1996, and his appeal was rejected in February 1997. The court held the theft must have occurred during his duty hours since seven high-security locks could not have been broken in 20 minutes, found no fault in the disciplinary or appellate orders, and dismissed the writ, leaving the removal intact.", "court_quote": "An inference as such was rightly drawn on basis of all available evidence that the theft occured during duty hours of the petitioner and he was negligent in discharging his duties.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Judgment text verified; CISF constable removal for patrol negligence upheld.", "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": "2009-04-08", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819/1998", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21632312/", "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-96" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-121-005", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2009-0025", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1086", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": null, "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": null, "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8120/2007", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Govind Mathur" ], "judgment_date": "2009-05-05", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2009, "incident_date": "1973-01-01", "incident_year": 1973, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 14", "Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 23", "Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Rajasthan 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, Rajasthan Police" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 0, "sentence_type": null, "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1734881/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable joined the Rajasthan Police on 11 May 1973 against a Scheduled Caste vacancy on a 1969 caste certificate, and was charge-sheeted in November 2006 for obtaining the appointment by a false certificate. The court recorded that he first denied the charge but admitted guilt in writing on 16 December 2006, and was awarded withholding of pension from his 31 December 2006 retirement, affirmed on appeal in June 2007. The court held the appointment was void ab initio and that no penalty less than dismissal was proportionate, but on equity substituted the penalty with withholding of pension beyond the minimum pension under the 1996 Pension Rules, payable from the date of the writ decision. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "Constable joined the Rajasthan Police on 11 May 1973 against a Scheduled Caste vacancy on a 1969 caste certificate, and was charge-sheeted in November 2006 for obtaining the appointment by a false certificate. The court recorded that he first denied the charge but admitted guilt in writing on 16 December 2006, and was awarded withholding of pension from his 31 December 2006 retirement, affirmed on appeal in June 2007. The court held the appointment was void ab initio and that no penalty less than dismissal was proportionate, but on equity substituted the penalty with withholding of pension beyond the minimum pension under the 1996 Pension Rules, payable from the date of the writ decision.", "court_quote": "The narration of facts makes it apparent that the petitioner obtained appointment by playing fraud and that cannot be condoned.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Judgment text verified; police constable appointment-fraud penalty sustained as modified.", "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": "2009-05-05", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8120/2007", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1734881/", "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-96" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-121-004", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2009-0032", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1083", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Dungarpur Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "display_title_redacted": "Dungarpur Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Dungarpur", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Dungarpur", "police_station_or_unit": "Police Line, Dungarpur", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jodhpur", "case_title": "Dungarpur Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 648/1997", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Govind Mathur" ], "judgment_date": "2009-10-29", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2009, "incident_date": "1992-02-01", "incident_year": 1992, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 420", "IPC 379", "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16", "Constitution Art. 226", "Constitution Art. 227" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Police Line, Dungarpur", "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, Police Line, Dungarpur" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": null, "descriptor": "Dungarpur resident" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569957/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Rajasthan Police Constable of Police Line, Dungarpur was charge-sheeted in 1994 for allegedly taking a Rs 40,000 bribe from a Dungarpur resident, an accused in a customs/smuggling matter, in February 1992, tarnishing the image of the police. The inquiry officer found him not guilty, but the disciplinary authority disagreed after notice and removed him from service in September 1995 — affirmed in appeal in August 1996 — while the ACJM No. 1, Udaipur acquitted him in the related criminal case under Sections 420 and 379 IPC in August 1995. The court found the complainant and police investigation witnesses supported the bribe allegation, held the disciplinary authority was entitled to disagree with reasons after notice, and held the benefit-of-doubt criminal acquittal does not vitiate a departmental finding on preponderance of probability. It dismissed the writ petition, sustaining the removal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "Rajasthan Police Constable of Police Line, Dungarpur was charge-sheeted in 1994 for allegedly taking a Rs 40,000 bribe from a Dungarpur resident, an accused in a customs/smuggling matter, in February 1992, tarnishing the image of the police. The inquiry officer found him not guilty, but the disciplinary authority disagreed after notice and removed him from service in September 1995 — affirmed in appeal in August 1996 — while the ACJM No. 1, Udaipur acquitted him in the related criminal case under Sections 420 and 379 IPC in August 1995. The court found the complainant and police investigation witnesses supported the bribe allegation, held the disciplinary authority was entitled to disagree with reasons after notice, and held the benefit-of-doubt criminal acquittal does not vitiate a departmental finding on preponderance of probability. It dismissed the writ petition, sustaining the removal.", "court_quote": "In the present case, the complainant [name withheld] and other police officials, who made investigation in the case, supported the allegations. Sole defence of the delinquent employee was that the police officials made wrong statements because of bias, but he failed to satisfy the reason for such bias. Nothing is said by him regarding any nexus between the complainant and the police officials.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Judgment text verified; constable's removal for Rs 40,000 bribe-taking upheld despite criminal acquittal.", "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": "2009-10-29", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 648/1997", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569957/", "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-95" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-121-001", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2010-0026", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0899", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another", "display_title_redacted": "Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Bikaner", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": "Bikaner district police", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another", "case_number": "Special Appeal (Writ) arising from CWP No. 1814/1992", "citation": "(2010) 2 WLN 465", "judges": [ "Jagdish Bhalla", "Dinesh Maheshwari" ], "judgment_date": "2010-03-22", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2010, "incident_date": null, "incident_year": null, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16", "Constitution Art. 226" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Bikaner district police, Rajasthan", "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, Bikaner district police, Rajasthan" } ], "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://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/213635/hanumana-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-another/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "Constable was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 CCA Rules for habitual absence (earlier dismissed in 1983, reinstated in 1986; absent 40 times in about 8.5 years), inattention to duties, indisciplined conduct and blackmail of officers, and engineering a false ACB bribery trap against Inspector (Wireless) [name withheld] over what was a loan repayment. He did not participate in the inquiry despite opportunities; the SP Bikaner dismissed him on 12.06.1991, the DIG dismissed his appeal on 03.01.1992, and the Single Judge dismissed his writ on 29.05.1997. The Division Bench held he could not complain of ex parte proceedings, no prejudice was shown, he relied on a prima facie fabricated document, and the habitual-absenteeism finding in a disciplined service was sound. It dismissed the appeal with Rs.5,500 costs (no single incident date; misconduct spanned 1983-1991).", "summary_verified": "Constable was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 CCA Rules for habitual absence (earlier dismissed in 1983, reinstated in 1986; absent 40 times in about 8.5 years), inattention to duties, indisciplined conduct and blackmail of officers, and engineering a false ACB bribery trap against Inspector (Wireless) [name withheld] over what was a loan repayment. He did not participate in the inquiry despite opportunities; the SP Bikaner dismissed him on 12.06.1991, the DIG dismissed his appeal on 03.01.1992, and the Single Judge dismissed his writ on 29.05.1997. The Division Bench held he could not complain of ex parte proceedings, no prejudice was shown, he relied on a prima facie fabricated document, and the habitual-absenteeism finding in a disciplined service was sound. It dismissed the appeal with Rs.5,500 costs (no single incident date; misconduct spanned 1983-1991).", "court_quote": "The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,500/- (five thousand and five hundred).", "court_quote_para": "27", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Special appeal verified; dismissal of habitually absent constable upheld with Rs.5,500 costs.", "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": "2010-03-22", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(2010) 2 WLN 465", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/213635/hanumana-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-another/", "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-75" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP2-54-002", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2010-0029", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0900", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Sadulshahar Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Sadulshahar Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Sri Ganganagar", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Sadulshahar", "police_station_or_unit": "Sri Ganganagar district police", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Sadulshahar Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "case_number": null, "citation": "(2010) 3 RLW 2777", "judges": [ "Vineet Kothari" ], "judgment_date": "2010-05-19", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2010, "incident_date": "1994-04-02", "incident_year": 1994, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 222", "IPC 223", "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Sri Ganganagar district police, Rajasthan", "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, Sri Ganganagar district police, Rajasthan" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Sri Ganganagar district police, Rajasthan", "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, Sri Ganganagar district police, Rajasthan" } ], "officer_count": 2, "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://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/193103/satvir-singh-godara-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "On 02.04.1994 constables and [name withheld] escorting six accused to the MJM Sadulshahar court lost two accused (Nakli @ [name withheld] and Billu); the ASP Hanumangarh enquiry disbelieved the 'nature's call at the bus stand' defence and found [name withheld] ferried the two accused by jeep to village Alipura for extraneous reasons with [name withheld] hands-in-glove, with FIR No.83/1994 u/s 222-223 IPC also registered. The SP dismissed both constables in 1995 and the DIG dismissed their appeal; [name withheld] died during the writs, pursued by petitioner [name withheld]. The court held the findings rested on cogent material including the jeep driver and home-guard witnesses, the escape story was make-believe, and dismissal was not disproportionate where NDPS/s.302 IPC accused were let off. It dismissed both writ petitions with no order as to costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "On 02.04.1994 constables and [name withheld] escorting six accused to the MJM Sadulshahar court lost two accused (Nakli @ [name withheld] and Billu); the ASP Hanumangarh enquiry disbelieved the 'nature's call at the bus stand' defence and found [name withheld] ferried the two accused by jeep to village Alipura for extraneous reasons with [name withheld] hands-in-glove, with FIR No.83/1994 u/s 222-223 IPC also registered. The SP dismissed both constables in 1995 and the DIG dismissed their appeal; [name withheld] died during the writs, pursued by petitioner [name withheld]. The court held the findings rested on cogent material including the jeep driver and home-guard witnesses, the escape story was make-believe, and dismissal was not disproportionate where NDPS/s.302 IPC accused were let off. It dismissed both writ petitions with no order as to costs.", "court_quote": "The Police officials in whose custody the accused persons are taken to Courts cannot be allowed any sympathy or leniency in such matters if such a grave charge is proved against them.", "court_quote_para": "11", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Writs verified; dismissal of two constables for colluding in escape of accused from custody upheld.", "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": "2010-05-19", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(2010) 3 RLW 2777", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/193103/satvir-singh-godara-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/", "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-75" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP2-54-003", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2010-0006", "status": "overturned", "merged_id": "CWC-0319", "alias_merged_ids": [ "CWC-0533" ], "display_title": "Gangdhar Police Station House Officer and others vs State of Rajasthan", "display_title_redacted": "Gangdhar Police Station House Officer and others vs State of Rajasthan", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Jhalawar", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Gangdhar", "police_station_or_unit": "Gangdhar Police Station", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Gangdhar Police Station House Officer and others vs State of Rajasthan", "case_number": "D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 121/2004", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Narendra Kumar Jain", "Meena V. Gomber" ], "judgment_date": "2010-08-05", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2010, "incident_date": "1999-05-06", "incident_year": 1999, "category": "Custodial death", "admin_category": "brutality", "admin_subcategory": "custodial_death", "subcategory": "custodial_death", "subcategory_display": "custodial death", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 302", "IPC 331", "IPC 348", "IPC 201", "IPC 34" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Station House Officer", "unit": "Gangdhar Police Station", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "history:acquitted_on_appeal" ], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.94, "jev_p_culpable": 0.92, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "acquitted_on_appeal", "name_public": null, "display": "Station House Officer, Gangdhar Police Station" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Gangdhar Police Station", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "history:acquitted_on_appeal" ], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.93, "jev_p_culpable": 0.75, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "acquitted_on_appeal", "name_public": null, "display": "Constable, Gangdhar Police Station" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Gangdhar Police Station", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "history:acquitted_on_appeal" ], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.94, "jev_p_culpable": 0.8, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "acquitted_on_appeal", "name_public": null, "display": "Constable, Gangdhar Police Station" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Gangdhar Police Station", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "history:acquitted_on_appeal" ], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.94, "jev_p_culpable": 0.76, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "acquitted_on_appeal", "name_public": null, "display": "Constable, Gangdhar Police Station" } ], "officer_count": 4, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Gangdhar man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "imprisonment", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/751582/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1094335/", "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257706/" ], "summary": "The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of SHO and Constables, [name withheld], and [name withheld] of Gangdhar Police Station for the custodial death of a Gangdhar man The deceased had been illegally detained for interrogation on 5 May 1999 and was tortured to death in police custody on the night of 6-7 May 1999, after which the police personnel transported the body in a police vehicle and burned it to destroy evidence. Affirming the judgment of the Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Jhalawar, the High Court held that the prosecution had conclusively established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence proving the offences under Sections 302, 331, 348, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Later proceedings: on 27 April 2016, the Supreme Court of India acquitted [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld] of all charges on appeal; the convictions recorded in this judgment therefore do not stand. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of SHO and Constables, [name withheld], and [name withheld] of Gangdhar Police Station for the custodial death of a Gangdhar man The deceased had been illegally detained for interrogation on 5 May 1999 and was tortured to death in police custody on the night of 6-7 May 1999, after which the police personnel transported the body in a police vehicle and burned it to destroy evidence. Affirming the judgment of the Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Jhalawar, the High Court held that the prosecution had conclusively established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence proving the offences under Sections 302, 331, 348, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.", "court_quote": "For the foregoing reasons, and in the light of principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court, hence we concur with the findings arrived at by learned Sessions Judge and uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants as mentioned hereinabove.", "court_quote_para": "103", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan High Court upheld conviction and life imprisonment of SHO and three constables for custodial torture and murder of a Gangdhar man", "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": "Custodial death", "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": null, "action_type": "Conviction", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation", "source": "D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 121/2004", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "2010-08-05", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)", "source": "D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 121/2004", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "2016-04-27", "action_type": "Acquitted on appeal", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Supreme Court of India", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "Later proceedings: on 27 April 2016, the Supreme Court of India acquitted [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld] of all charges on appeal; the convictions recorded in this judgment therefore do not stand.", "disposition": "Later proceeding · Conviction not standing", "source": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178967533/", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [ { "court": "Supreme Court of India", "date": "2016-04-27", "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178967533/", "outcome": "acquitted_on_appeal" } ], "final_outcome_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178967533/", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/751582/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1094335/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257706/", "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-11", "chunk-42" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-001", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2010-0010", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0490", "alias_merged_ids": [ "CWC-1442" ], "display_title": "Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kishore Singh and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kishore Singh and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Barmer", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Barmer", "police_station_or_unit": "Sadar Police Station", "court": "Supreme Court of India", "court_as_verified": "Supreme Court of India", "bench": null, "case_title": "Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kishore Singh and Others", "case_number": "Criminal Appeal Nos. 2047-2049 of 2010", "citation": "(2011) 6 SCC 369", "judges": [ "T.S. Thakur", "Markandey Katju" ], "judgment_date": "2010-10-25", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2010, "incident_date": "1994-02-02", "incident_year": 1994, "category": "Custodial torture", "admin_category": "brutality", "admin_subcategory": "custodial_torture", "subcategory": "custodial_torture", "subcategory_display": "custodial torture", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "conviction_by_sc", "sections": [ "IPC 326", "IPC 342", "IPC 120B" ], "officers": [ { "name": "Kishore Singh", "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Sadar Police Station", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "yes", "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.06, "jev_p_culpable": 0.95, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Kishore Singh", "display": "Kishore Singh (Constable)" }, { "name": "Sumer Dan", "rank": "Assistant Sub-Inspector", "unit": "Sadar Police Station", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "yes", "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.07, "jev_p_culpable": 0.96, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Sumer Dan", "display": "Sumer Dan (Assistant Sub-Inspector)" }, { "name": "Sohan Singh", "rank": "SHO", "unit": "Sadar Police Station", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "yes", "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.07, "jev_p_culpable": 0.95, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Sohan Singh", "display": "Sohan Singh (SHO)" } ], "officer_count": 3, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Barmer man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "mixed", "sentence_max_years": 5, "compensation_inr": 110000, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1473938/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://sooperkanoon.com/case/905397/central-bureau-investigation-c-b-vs-kishore-singh", "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/665692/central-bureau-of-investigation-appellant-hash-kishore-singh-and-others-respondent/" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Barmer man, a liquor-shop employee, was locked up at Sadar Police Station from 2 to 5 February 1994 without production before a Magistrate, beaten, and on 5 February 1994 his penis was chopped off with a razor inside the station. The trial court convicted all three policemen but the Rajasthan High Court acquitted the SHO and ASI and reduced the constable's sentence. The Supreme Court allowed the CBI appeals, set aside both acquittals, and held policemen who commit such crimes deserve harsher punishment than others. It sentenced constable Kishore Singh to 5 years RI under Section 326 with Rs 50,000 fine, ASI Sumer Dan to 3 years RI under Section 326/120B with Rs 50,000 fine, and SHO Sohan Singh to 6 months SI under Section 342 with Rs 10,000 fine, directing all fines to be paid to the victim as compensation. This Supreme Court judgment set aside the acquittals recorded in the High Court judgment covered by a companion record of this dataset; the final status of the accused police personnel under this judgment is convicted. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "A Barmer man, a liquor-shop employee, was locked up at Sadar Police Station from 2 to 5 February 1994 without production before a Magistrate, beaten, and on 5 February 1994 his penis was chopped off with a razor inside the station. The trial court convicted all three policemen but the Rajasthan High Court acquitted the SHO and ASI and reduced the constable's sentence. The Supreme Court allowed the CBI appeals, set aside both acquittals, and held policemen who commit such crimes deserve harsher punishment than others. It sentenced constable Kishore Singh to 5 years RI under Section 326 with Rs 50,000 fine, ASI Sumer Dan to 3 years RI under Section 326/120B with Rs 50,000 fine, and SHO Sohan Singh to 6 months SI under Section 342 with Rs 10,000 fine, directing all fines to be paid to the victim as compensation.", "court_quote": "In our opinion, policemen who commit criminal acts deserve harsher punishment than other persons who commit such acts, because it is the duty of the policemen to protect the people, and not break the law themselves.", "court_quote_para": "31", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "CBI appeals allowed; acquittals set aside, 5y/3y RI with fines to victim.", "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": "Custodial torture", "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": "2010-10-25", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Supreme Court of India", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation", "source": "(2011) 6 SCC 369", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1473938/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://sooperkanoon.com/case/905397/central-bureau-investigation-c-b-vs-kishore-singh", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/665692/central-bureau-of-investigation-appellant-hash-kishore-singh-and-others-respondent/", "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-31", "chunk-44" ], "merged_case_id": "SWCUSTOD-008", "officers_named_public": 3, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2010-0038", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0898", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Alwar Police Head Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Alwar Police Head Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Alwar", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": "Alwar district police", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Alwar Police Head Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "case_number": "Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 328 of 2010", "citation": "(2010) 11 RAJ CK 0135", "judges": [ "Arun Mishra", "Dalip Singh" ], "judgment_date": "2010-11-22", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2010, "incident_date": "1997-10-07", "incident_year": 1997, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)", "PC Act 1988 s.13(2)" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Head Constable", "role": "convicted", "unit": "Alwar district police, Rajasthan", "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": "Head Constable, Alwar district police, Rajasthan" } ], "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://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/220024/ummedi-lal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "Head Constable was trapped on 07.10.1997 and convicted by the trial court under PC Act 1988 ss.13(1)(d)/13(2), sentenced to two years RI with Rs.5,000 fine; his criminal appeal (No.240/2001) remained pending with only the sentence suspended. After repeated suspension-reinstatement cycles the SP Alwar removed him on 08.03.2010 on the ground of conviction, and the Single Bench dismissed his writ on 19.04.2010. The Division Bench held the corruption conviction renders the appellant totally unfit to continue in service, the pending appeal was of no avail since the conviction was not stayed, and prior hearing would have been an empty formality. It held the removal appropriate and lawful and dismissed the special appeal.", "summary_verified": "Head Constable was trapped on 07.10.1997 and convicted by the trial court under PC Act 1988 ss.13(1)(d)/13(2), sentenced to two years RI with Rs.5,000 fine; his criminal appeal (No.240/2001) remained pending with only the sentence suspended. After repeated suspension-reinstatement cycles the SP Alwar removed him on 08.03.2010 on the ground of conviction, and the Single Bench dismissed his writ on 19.04.2010. The Division Bench held the corruption conviction renders the appellant totally unfit to continue in service, the pending appeal was of no avail since the conviction was not stayed, and prior hearing would have been an empty formality. It held the removal appropriate and lawful and dismissed the special appeal.", "court_quote": "The conviction in such a case renders the Appellant totally unfit to continue in service.", "court_quote_para": "8", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Special appeal verified; removal of PC Act-convicted head constable upheld.", "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": "2010-11-22", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(2010) 11 RAJ CK 0135", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/220024/ummedi-lal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/", "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-75" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP2-54-001", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2012-0008", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0630", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Rajasthan Man vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "display_title_redacted": "Rajasthan Man vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": null, "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": null, "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Rajasthan Man vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "case_number": "D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1034/2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5301/2005", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Arun Mishra", "Narendra Kumar Jain-I" ], "judgment_date": "2012-05-21", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2012, "incident_date": "2005-05-16", "incident_year": 2005, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "illegal_detention_false_imprisonment", "subcategory": "illegal_detention_false_imprisonment", "subcategory_display": "illegal detention false imprisonment", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "adverse_finding_compensation", "sections": [ "IPC 148", "IPC 323" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Station House Officer", "unit": null, "role": "unclear", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "ledger:unclear", "key2:no_row" ], "ledger_role": "unclear", "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": "Station House Officer" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Rajasthan man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "compensation_only", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": 25000, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5835780/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=812102068200&title=rishi-raj-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. A Rajasthan man had surrendered on 9 September 1985 and was acquitted on 6 March 1992, but the 1985 arrest warrant was never recalled. The court found that police arrested him on 16 May 2005 on that dead warrant, kept him overnight at the police station despite his protest, and he secured bail only on 19 May 2005. The Division Bench held the arrest grossly negligent and illegal, set aside the Single Bench order denying relief, and awarded Rs 25,000 compensation with 6% interest on default. It also directed the DGP, Rajasthan to review dead warrants and order yearly reviews. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "A Rajasthan man had surrendered on 9 September 1985 and was acquitted on 6 March 1992, but the 1985 arrest warrant was never recalled. The court found that police arrested him on 16 May 2005 on that dead warrant, kept him overnight at the police station despite his protest, and he secured bail only on 19 May 2005. The Division Bench held the arrest grossly negligent and illegal, set aside the Single Bench order denying relief, and awarded Rs 25,000 compensation with 6% interest on default. It also directed the DGP, Rajasthan to review dead warrants and order yearly reviews.", "court_quote": "It is case of illegal detention of the appellant in execution of warrant of arrest, which ceased to be effective way back in the year 1985.", "court_quote_para": null, "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "DB judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; arrest on dead 1985 warrant 13 years after acquittal held illegal, Rs 25,000 compensation.", "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": "2012-05-21", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.", "disposition": "Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)", "source": "D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1034/2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5301/2005", "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": "wrong_facts", "corrections_applied": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5835780/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=812102068200&title=rishi-raj-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": false, "verified_by": [ "chunk-48" ], "merged_case_id": "WEST---CENTRAL-002", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2013-0006", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0329", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "display_title_redacted": "Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": null, "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": null, "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jodhpur", "case_title": "Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2287/2013", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Govind Mathur" ], "judgment_date": "2013-04-22", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2013, "incident_date": null, "incident_year": null, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "PC Act 1988 s.7", "PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)", "PC Act 1988 s.13(2)" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Sub-Inspector", "unit": null, "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2_openrouter:no" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "no", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.05, "jev_p_culpable": 0.95, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Sub-Inspector" } ], "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/16374001/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition of Sub-Inspector, upholding his dismissal under Rule 19(i) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, imposed on the ground of his trial-court conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner contended that his criminal appeal was pending and sentence suspended, so the conviction had not attained finality. The Court held that a trial-court conviction remains final until altered in appeal and that suspension of sentence does not suspend the conviction, so the disciplinary authority was competent to dismiss him for the conduct leading to the conviction. The two-page order states neither his posting nor the underlying bribe facts. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition of Sub-Inspector, upholding his dismissal under Rule 19(i) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, imposed on the ground of his trial-court conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner contended that his criminal appeal was pending and sentence suspended, so the conviction had not attained finality. The Court held that a trial-court conviction remains final until altered in appeal and that suspension of sentence does not suspend the conviction, so the disciplinary authority was competent to dismiss him for the conduct leading to the conviction. The two-page order states neither his posting nor the underlying bribe facts.", "court_quote": "In the present case admittedly the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as such, it is only his conduct that led to his dismissal.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "medium", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ and upheld Rule 19(i) dismissal of SI on PC Act conviction, holding pending appeal and suspended sentence do not suspend conviction.", "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": "2013-04-22", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2287/2013", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16374001/", "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-11", "chunk-r07" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-004", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2013-0040", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1088", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable (Driver) No. 824 vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Rajasthan Police Constable (Driver) No. 824 vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Pratapgarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Pratapgarh", "police_station_or_unit": "Police Line Pratapgarh", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable (Driver) No. 824 vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "case_number": "D.B. Civil Writ Review Petition No. 213/2011 (arising from D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 792/2011)", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Amitava Roy", "P. K. Lohra" ], "judgment_date": "2013-12-11", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2013, "incident_date": "2009-02-18", "incident_year": 2009, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 16" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable (Driver) No. 824", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Rajasthan Police, Police Line Pratapgarh", "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 (Driver) No. 824, Rajasthan Police, Police Line Pratapgarh" } ], "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/186307814/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/222385/samunder-singh-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/" ], "summary": "Constable (Driver) [name withheld], deputed on 18 February 2009 to escort arrested accused from Pratapgarh to Nimbahera court in government vehicle RJ-09-S-4326, was charged with abandoning the escort party and accused, driving the vehicle away, and consuming liquor inside it until unfit to drive. The court record notes he was photographed half-lying in the vehicle, the photo was published in Rajasthan Patrika on 19 February 2009, and a government-hospital medical examination confirmed alcohol influence. The Division Bench had dismissed his special appeal on 29 June 2011 holding his own statement plus the doctor evidence proved on-duty liquor consumption; the reviewing Division Bench on 11 December 2013 reproduced those findings and dismissed the review, leaving the dismissal from service intact.", "summary_verified": "Constable (Driver) [name withheld], deputed on 18 February 2009 to escort arrested accused from Pratapgarh to Nimbahera court in government vehicle RJ-09-S-4326, was charged with abandoning the escort party and accused, driving the vehicle away, and consuming liquor inside it until unfit to drive. The court record notes he was photographed half-lying in the vehicle, the photo was published in Rajasthan Patrika on 19 February 2009, and a government-hospital medical examination confirmed alcohol influence. The Division Bench had dismissed his special appeal on 29 June 2011 holding his own statement plus the doctor evidence proved on-duty liquor consumption; the reviewing Division Bench on 11 December 2013 reproduced those findings and dismissed the review, leaving the dismissal from service intact.", "court_quote": "Vis-a-vis the plea that his past conduct could not have been taken into consideration for determining the penalty, the Co-ordinate Bench held that even dehors the same, the misconduct proved against him on the charges leveled was adequate enough to warrant his dismissal from service, more particularly in view of the fact that he at all relevant times was a member of the disciplined force.", "court_quote_para": "3", "confidence": "medium", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Review judgment verified; DB dismissal-upheld findings reproduced verbatim though DB text unreported.", "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": "2013-12-11", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "D.B. Civil Writ Review Petition No. 213/2011 (arising from D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 792/2011)", "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": "wrong_facts", "corrections_applied": [ "court_quote", "court_quote_para" ] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186307814/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/222385/samunder-singh-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/", "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-96" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-121-006", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2014-0012", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0331", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Asgar Ali vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (with Idan vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.)", "display_title_redacted": "Asgar Ali vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (with Idan vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.)", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Pali", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Desuri", "police_station_or_unit": "Desuri Police Station", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jodhpur", "case_title": "Asgar Ali vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (with Idan vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.)", "case_number": "D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 253/2006 with No. 12/2005", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Sunil Ambwani", "Prakash Gupta" ], "judgment_date": "2014-12-11", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2014, "incident_date": "1975-06-28", "incident_year": 1975, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [], "officers": [ { "name": "Asgar Ali", "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Police Station Desuri, Pali", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.09, "jev_p_culpable": 0.93, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Asgar Ali", "display": "Asgar Ali (Constable)" }, { "name": "Idan", "rank": "Sub-Inspector", "unit": "Police Station Desuri, Pali", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.15, "jev_p_culpable": 0.9, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Idan", "display": "Idan (Sub-Inspector)" } ], "officer_count": 2, "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/53653387/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c94a93261a672ba9aa" ], "summary": "A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed the special appeals of Sub-Inspector Idan and Constable Asgar Ali of Desuri Police Station, Pali, sustaining their 1978 dismissals after a Rule 16 departmental enquiry. On 28 June 1975 the officers seized 15 kg of contraband opium from five persons but, instead of recording the search, seizure and detention in police records, misappropriated the opium, released the accused and disposed of the contraband for illegal consideration, with the constable abandoning duty to assist. The Court held the departmental findings on non-recording could not be faulted and could not be displaced by a criminal acquittal secured about 18 years later on minor contradictions, applying the differing standards of proof in departmental and criminal proceedings. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed the special appeals of Sub-Inspector Idan and Constable Asgar Ali of Desuri Police Station, Pali, sustaining their 1978 dismissals after a Rule 16 departmental enquiry. On 28 June 1975 the officers seized 15 kg of contraband opium from five persons but, instead of recording the search, seizure and detention in police records, misappropriated the opium, released the accused and disposed of the contraband for illegal consideration, with the constable abandoning duty to assist. The Court held the departmental findings on non-recording could not be faulted and could not be displaced by a criminal acquittal secured about 18 years later on minor contradictions, applying the differing standards of proof in departmental and criminal proceedings.", "court_quote": "The findings in this regard in the departmental proceedings, cannot be faulted, nor its effect cannot be taken away on the findings recorded in a criminal case, after a period of about 18 years, in which on minor contradictions and inconsistencies, the statements of witnesses for prosecution were disbelieved by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate.", "court_quote_para": "30", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan High Court Division Bench dismissed special appeals and sustained dismissal of SI Idan and Constable Asgar Ali for misappropriating 15 kg seized opium and releasing the accused.", "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": "2014-12-11", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 253/2006 with No. 12/2005", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53653387/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c94a93261a672ba9aa", "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-11", "chunk-r07" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-006", "officers_named_public": 2, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2015-0027", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0902", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": null, "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": null, "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "case_number": "Civil Writ Petition No. 6189 of 1998", "citation": "(2015) 07 RAJ CK 0195", "judges": [ "Anupinder Singh Grewal" ], "judgment_date": "2015-07-08", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2015, "incident_date": "1989-09-14", "incident_year": 1989, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Rajasthan 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, Rajasthan 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://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/227056/gopi-chand-yadav-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=815102789100&title=gopi-chand-yadav-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors" ], "summary": "[name withheld], a Rajasthan Police constable appointed in 1981, was charge-sheeted for unauthorised absence from duty from 14 September 1989 to 15 March 1991 and dismissed after enquiry on 28 December 1991; his departmental appeal and review were also rejected. He challenged the dismissal in a writ petition contending procedural lapses, illness, and disproportionate punishment. The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) held there was adequate material supporting the findings and that writ-court interference is confined to cases of no material or gross illegality. The court held that absence without leave in a disciplined force like the police must be viewed seriously, and dismissed the petition, upholding the dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "[name withheld], a Rajasthan Police constable appointed in 1981, was charge-sheeted for unauthorised absence from duty from 14 September 1989 to 15 March 1991 and dismissed after enquiry on 28 December 1991; his departmental appeal and review were also rejected. He challenged the dismissal in a writ petition contending procedural lapses, illness, and disproportionate punishment. The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) held there was adequate material supporting the findings and that writ-court interference is confined to cases of no material or gross illegality. The court held that absence without leave in a disciplined force like the police must be viewed seriously, and dismissed the petition, upholding the dismissal.", "court_quote": "Tested in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, the dismissal of the petitioner, who was a Police Constable and had been absent without leave for a period of 547 days, cannot in any manner be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct.", "court_quote_para": "18", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan HC judgment verified on primary source; dismissal of police constable for 547-day absence upheld.", "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": "2015-07-08", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(2015) 07 RAJ CK 0195", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/227056/gopi-chand-yadav-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=815102789100&title=gopi-chand-yadav-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors", "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": "GAP2-55-001", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2017-0003", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0328", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Aslam Bux vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "display_title_redacted": "Aslam Bux vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Udaipur", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": null, "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jodhpur", "case_title": "Aslam Bux vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4993/2005", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Sanjeev Prakash Sharma" ], "judgment_date": "2017-01-24", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2017, "incident_date": "1999-01-01", "incident_year": 1999, "category": "Custodial torture", "admin_category": "brutality", "admin_subcategory": "custodial_rape_sexual_assault", "subcategory": "custodial_rape_sexual_assault", "subcategory_display": "custodial rape sexual assault", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 366", "IPC 368", "IPC 372", "IPC 373", "IPC 376(g)" ], "officers": [ { "name": "Aslam Bux", "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Udaipur", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.07, "jev_p_culpable": 0.93, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Aslam Bux", "display": "Aslam Bux (Constable)" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "female", "descriptor": "Udaipur woman" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197680134/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition of Constable Aslam Bux, upholding his dismissal from service by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, following a departmental enquiry into seven charges arising from FIR No. 03/1999 under Sections 366, 368, 372, 373 and 376(g) IPC for raping the prosecutrix and selling her to another person. Although the Fast Track Court at Pali had acquitted him in the criminal trial on benefit of doubt, the High Court held that the prosecutrix had deposed afresh before the enquiry officer asserting the rape and sale, so the departmental finding of guilt stood independent of the criminal acquittal. The Court held the enquiry fair and lawful, with full opportunity to cross-examine, and ruled that no punishment lesser than dismissal was possible for a police constable involved in such a case. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition of Constable Aslam Bux, upholding his dismissal from service by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, following a departmental enquiry into seven charges arising from FIR No. 03/1999 under Sections 366, 368, 372, 373 and 376(g) IPC for raping the prosecutrix and selling her to another person. Although the Fast Track Court at Pali had acquitted him in the criminal trial on benefit of doubt, the High Court held that the prosecutrix had deposed afresh before the enquiry officer asserting the rape and sale, so the departmental finding of guilt stood independent of the criminal acquittal. The Court held the enquiry fair and lawful, with full opportunity to cross-examine, and ruled that no punishment lesser than dismissal was possible for a police constable involved in such a case.", "court_quote": "In the present case, the prosecutrix herself has deposed before the departmental Enquiry Officer and has given her statement asserting that petitioner had raped her and sold her to another person.", "court_quote_para": "12", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ and upheld dismissal of Constable Aslam Bux for rape and sale of prosecutrix, holding departmental guilt independent of criminal acquittal.", "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": "Custodial torture", "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": "2017-01-24", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4993/2005", "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": "wrong_facts", "corrections_applied": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197680134/", "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-11", "chunk-r07" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-003", "officers_named_public": 1, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2018-0022", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1089", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Rajsamand", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Deogarh", "police_station_or_unit": "Deogarh", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 521/2009", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Pushpendra Singh Bhati" ], "judgment_date": "2018-02-01", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2018, "incident_date": "2002-08-01", "incident_year": 2002, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 302", "IPC 120B", "IPC 34", "Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 16" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Rajasthan Police, Deogarh, District Rajsamand", "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, Rajasthan Police, Deogarh, District Rajsamand" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "age": null, "gender": null, "name": null, "descriptor": "Deogarh resident" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181864053/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-165156" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable, posted at Deogarh, proceeded on leave on 13 August 2002 and was accused during unauthorised absence of joining associates in crushing a Deogarh resident under a jeep over a land dispute and passing it off as an accident. The court recorded a criminal trial under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC ending in acquittal on 8 October 2003, followed by a six-charge departmental inquiry ending in dismissal on 11 December 2003, affirmed on appeal in 2005 and review in 2008. The court held the inquiry strictly lawful, the murder charge proved on eye-witness [name withheld] with corroboration, and the benefit-of-doubt acquittal no bar given differing standards of proof, and dismissed the writ. The dismissal was later set aside by a Division Bench in April 2019 but restored by the Supreme Court in October 2020. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "Constable, posted at Deogarh, proceeded on leave on 13 August 2002 and was accused during unauthorised absence of joining associates in crushing a Deogarh resident under a jeep over a land dispute and passing it off as an accident. The court recorded a criminal trial under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC ending in acquittal on 8 October 2003, followed by a six-charge departmental inquiry ending in dismissal on 11 December 2003, affirmed on appeal in 2005 and review in 2008. The court held the inquiry strictly lawful, the murder charge proved on eye-witness [name withheld] with corroboration, and the benefit-of-doubt acquittal no bar given differing standards of proof, and dismissed the writ. The dismissal was later set aside by a Division Bench in April 2019 but restored by the Supreme Court in October 2020.", "court_quote": "The departmental enquiry, in this case, includes consideration of the evidence given by Jodh Singh, Hamer Singh, [name withheld], Shanker Singh etc. In the departmental enquiry, the authority has categorically found that Jodh Singh has given the evidence as an eye witness and has supported the complete allegations.", "court_quote_para": "20", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "SB judgment verified; dismissal for off-duty murder upheld (later DB reversal itself reversed by SC).", "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": "2018-02-01", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 521/2009", "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": "wrong_facts", "corrections_applied": [ "sections" ] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181864053/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-165156", "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-96" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-124-001", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2018-0023", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1090", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Laxmangarh Police Constable No. 728, C-Company vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Laxmangarh Police Constable No. 728, C-Company vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Sikar", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Laxmangarh", "police_station_or_unit": "11th Battalion RAC (IR), Vazirabad", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Laxmangarh Police Constable No. 728, C-Company vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writs No. 10453/2018", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Ashok Kumar Gaur" ], "judgment_date": "2018-05-15", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2018, "incident_date": "1995-04-02", "incident_year": 1995, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 16", "Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 30" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable No. 728, C-Company", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "11th Battalion RAC (IR), Vazirabad", "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 No. 728, C-Company, 11th Battalion RAC (IR), Vazirabad" } ], "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/17787134/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable of the 11th Battalion RAC (IR) was charge-sheeted in March 2017 for securing appointment on 2 April 1995 with a forged Class-8 transfer certificate and drawing salary since, causing loss to the exchequer. The court recorded that he was given documents, reminders and a personal hearing but showed total indifference and produced nothing to prove the certificate genuine. The disciplinary authority dismissed him in December 2017 and the appellate authority rejected his appeal in March 2018 after Rule 30 compliance. The court found no irregularity or illegality in either order and dismissed the writ for lack of merit. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "Constable of the 11th Battalion RAC (IR) was charge-sheeted in March 2017 for securing appointment on 2 April 1995 with a forged Class-8 transfer certificate and drawing salary since, causing loss to the exchequer. The court recorded that he was given documents, reminders and a personal hearing but showed total indifference and produced nothing to prove the certificate genuine. The disciplinary authority dismissed him in December 2017 and the appellate authority rejected his appeal in March 2018 after Rule 30 compliance. The court found no irregularity or illegality in either order and dismissed the writ for lack of merit.", "court_quote": "This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Judgment text verified; RAC constable dismissal for forged appointment certificate upheld.", "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": "2018-05-15", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "S.B. Civil Writs No. 10453/2018", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17787134/", "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-96" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-124-002", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2018-0019", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0727", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "State of Rajasthan and Others vs Jaipur Police Constable", "display_title_redacted": "State of Rajasthan and Others vs Jaipur Police Constable", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Jaipur", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Jaipur", "police_station_or_unit": "Police Lines, Jaipur", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "State of Rajasthan and Others vs Jaipur Police Constable", "case_number": "D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 637/2018", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Munishwar Nath Bhandari", "Dinesh Chandra Somani" ], "judgment_date": "2018-07-17", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2018, "incident_date": null, "incident_year": null, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Police Lines, Jaipur", "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, Police Lines, Jaipur" } ], "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/82277252/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable, posted as Cycle Sawar, was charge-sheeted for long unauthorised absence while drawing salary, having reported neither at the Police Line nor at the DGP's residence for nearly a year yet managing attendance entries. A disciplinary enquiry found the charges proved and he was dismissed; a Single Judge quashed the dismissal as unproved and the enquiry defective. The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge on proof, holding the department proved the absence with managed attendance, but held dismissal shockingly disproportionate for a first absence-only misconduct and substituted compulsory retirement with retiral benefits. No civilian victim is involved. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "Constable, posted as Cycle Sawar, was charge-sheeted for long unauthorised absence while drawing salary, having reported neither at the Police Line nor at the DGP's residence for nearly a year yet managing attendance entries. A disciplinary enquiry found the charges proved and he was dismissed; a Single Judge quashed the dismissal as unproved and the enquiry defective. The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge on proof, holding the department proved the absence with managed attendance, but held dismissal shockingly disproportionate for a first absence-only misconduct and substituted compulsory retirement with retiral benefits. No civilian victim is involved.", "court_quote": "Accordingly, we substitute the order of punishment of dismissal from service with that of compulsory retirement.", "court_quote_para": null, "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "DB judgment verified; misconduct upheld, dismissal cut to compulsory retirement (no civilian victim).", "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": "2018-07-17", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 637/2018", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82277252/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": false, "verified_by": [ "chunk-52" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP13-003", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2019-0026", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0904", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "D. vs State of Rajasthan", "display_title_redacted": "D. vs State of Rajasthan", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Pratapgarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Suhagpura", "police_station_or_unit": "Suhagpura Police Station", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jodhpur", "case_title": "D. vs State of Rajasthan", "case_number": "D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 27/2019", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Sandeep Mehta", "Vinit Kumar Mathur" ], "judgment_date": "2019-04-15", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2019, "incident_date": "2016-05-16", "incident_year": 2016, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "illegal_detention_false_imprisonment", "subcategory": "illegal_detention_false_imprisonment", "subcategory_display": "illegal detention false imprisonment", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "adverse_finding_compensation", "sections": [ "IPC 302", "JJ Act 2015 s.10", "JJ Act 2015 s.15", "JJ Act 2015 s.19(3)", "JJ Act 2015 s.49", "JJ Act 2015 s.107(2)", "JJ Model Rules 2016 r.86(5)", "Constitution Art. 21" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "SHO", "role": "named_only", "unit": "Police Station Suhagpura, Pratapgarh", "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": "SHO, Police Station Suhagpura, Pratapgarh" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "age": 17, "gender": "female", "descriptor": "Suhagpura girl, age 17", "name": null } ], "victims_redacted": [ { "age": 17, "gender": "female", "descriptor": "a 17-year-old girl" } ], "anonymised": true, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "compensation_only", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": 200000, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52890859/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5de53e9246571b2fd68a361e" ], "summary": "a 17-year-old girl, aged about 17, was arrested in FIR 51/2016 at Suhagpura (Pratapgarh) for killing her husband, transferred by the Juvenile for trial as an adult, convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Sessions Judge, and lodged in adult prison for nearly three years. The entire investigation was conducted by SHO with no Special Juvenile Police Unit officer and no woman police personnel associated, contrary to the JJ Act mandate. The Rajasthan High Court Division Bench held the Section 15 transfer, the investigation, and the incarceration in adult jail patently illegal and acquitted her. The court held the irregular investigation and unwarranted imprisonment grossly violated her fundamental rights and directed the State to pay Rs 2,00,000 compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "Durga, aged about 17, was arrested in FIR 51/2016 at Suhagpura (Pratapgarh) for killing her husband, transferred by the Juvenile for trial as an adult, convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Sessions Judge, and lodged in adult prison for nearly three years. The entire investigation was conducted by SHO with no Special Juvenile Police Unit officer and no woman police personnel associated, contrary to the JJ Act mandate. The Rajasthan High Court Division Bench held the Section 15 transfer, the investigation, and the incarceration in adult jail patently illegal and acquitted her. The court held the irregular investigation and unwarranted imprisonment grossly violated her fundamental rights and directed the State to pay Rs 2,00,000 compensation.", "court_quote": "As per Rule 86(5) of the Model Rules, it is a mandate of law that for dealing with the girl child, woman police personnel shall be engaged. However, on a perusal of the entire record, it is clear that neither was the case handled by the Special Juvenile Police Units nor any woman police personnel was ever associated for dealing with the case of the child appellant.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "medium", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; police investigation held patently irregular, acquittal plus compensation ordered.", "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": "2019-04-15", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.", "disposition": "Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)", "source": "D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 27/2019", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52890859/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5de53e9246571b2fd68a361e", "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": "GAP2-56-002", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2020-0008", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0323", "alias_merged_ids": [ "CWC-1444" ], "display_title": "State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Heem Singh", "display_title_redacted": "State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Heem Singh", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Rajsamand", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Khamnaur", "police_station_or_unit": "Rajasthan Police", "court": "Supreme Court of India", "court_as_verified": "Supreme Court of India", "bench": null, "case_title": "State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Heem Singh", "case_number": "Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 2020", "citation": "AIRONLINE 2020 SC 795", "judges": [ "D.Y. Chandrachud", "Indu Malhotra", "Indira Banerjee" ], "judgment_date": "2020-10-29", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2020, "incident_date": "2002-08-15", "incident_year": 2002, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Constitution of India Art. 142", "Constitution of India Art. 226", "IPC 302", "IPC 120B", "IPC 201" ], "officers": [ { "name": "Heem Singh", "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Rajasthan Police", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.13, "jev_p_culpable": 0.88, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Heem Singh", "display": "Heem Singh (Constable)" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Khamnaur man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173130822/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-165156", "https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/10/30/police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-but-dismissed-from-service-after-a-related-disciplinary-enquiry-read-why-sc-upheld-the-dismissal/" ], "summary": "The Supreme Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court Division Bench order that had directed reinstatement of Constable Heem Singh, who was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry found him complicit in a conspiracy to murder a Khamnaur man in August 2002. Although Heem Singh had been acquitted in the criminal trial due to witnesses turning hostile, the Supreme Court ruled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically vitiate disciplinary findings governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Observing that retaining an officer found culpable of serious misconduct would undermine public confidence in the police, the Court restored the disciplinary penalty of dismissal, granting only notional minimum qualifying service under Article 142 to facilitate retiral dues without back wages. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Supreme Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court Division Bench order that had directed reinstatement of Constable Heem Singh, who was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry found him complicit in a conspiracy to murder a Khamnaur man in August 2002. Although Heem Singh had been acquitted in the criminal trial due to witnesses turning hostile, the Supreme Court ruled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically vitiate disciplinary findings governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Observing that retaining an officer found culpable of serious misconduct would undermine public confidence in the police, the Court restored the disciplinary penalty of dismissal, granting only notional minimum qualifying service under Article 142 to facilitate retiral dues without back wages.", "court_quote": "True, even on the more relaxed standard which governs a disciplinary enquiry, evidence of the involvement of the respondent in a conspiracy involving the death of a Khamnaur man would be difficult to prove. But there are, as we have seen earlier, circumstances emerging from the record of the disciplinary proceedings which bring legitimacy to the contention of the State that to reinstate such an employee back in service will erode the credibility of and public confidence in the image of the police force.", "court_quote_para": "35", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Supreme Court upheld disciplinary dismissal of Constable Heem Singh for murder conspiracy, holding criminal acquittal did not preclude departmental dismissal.", "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": "2020-10-29", "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": "AIRONLINE 2020 SC 795", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173130822/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-165156", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/10/30/police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-but-dismissed-from-service-after-a-related-disciplinary-enquiry-read-why-sc-upheld-the-dismissal/", "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-11", "chunk-45" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-005", "officers_named_public": 1, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2022-0015", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0325", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Ram Karan vs State of Rajasthan", "display_title_redacted": "Ram Karan vs State of Rajasthan", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Tonk", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Aligarh", "police_station_or_unit": "Aligarh Police Station", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Ram Karan vs State of Rajasthan", "case_number": "S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 478/1986", "citation": null, "judges": [ "Narendra Singh Dhaddha" ], "judgment_date": "2022-07-25", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2022, "incident_date": "1982-10-11", "incident_year": 1982, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 161", "PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d)", "PC Act 1947 s.5(2)" ], "officers": [ { "name": "Ram Karan", "rank": "Sub-Inspector", "unit": "Aligarh Police Station", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.05, "jev_p_culpable": 0.97, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Ram Karan", "display": "Ram Karan (Sub-Inspector)" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Aligarh man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "mixed", "sentence_max_years": 1, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34724178/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal and upheld the conviction of former SHO-Inspector Ram Karan of Aligarh Police Station, Tonk, under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Ram Karan had threatened complainant [name withheld] with criminal prosecution under Section 182 IPC over an alleged false abduction complaint unless paid a bribe of Rs. 200, which was seized during an Anti-Corruption Department trap. Despite the officer passing away during the 36-year appeal pendency and his legal representatives continuing the appeal, the High Court held demand and acceptance firmly established and affirmed his conviction and concurrent one-year sentence.", "summary_verified": "The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal and upheld the conviction of former SHO-Inspector Ram Karan of Aligarh Police Station, Tonk, under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Ram Karan had threatened complainant [name withheld] with criminal prosecution under Section 182 IPC over an alleged false abduction complaint unless paid a bribe of Rs. 200, which was seized during an Anti-Corruption Department trap. Despite the officer passing away during the 36-year appeal pendency and his legal representatives continuing the appeal, the High Court held demand and acceptance firmly established and affirmed his conviction and concurrent one-year sentence.", "court_quote": "I am of the considered opinion that the judgment and order of the learned trial court does not suffer from infirmity and illegality. The appeal devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan High Court dismissed appeal and upheld the PC Act conviction and 1-year sentence of Sub-Inspector Ram Karan for demanding a Rs. 200 bribe.", "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": null, "action_type": "Conviction", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation", "source": "S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 478/1986", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "2022-07-25", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)", "source": "S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 478/1986", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34724178/", "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-11" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-007", "officers_named_public": 1, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2022-0018", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0324", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "The State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Phool Singh", "display_title_redacted": "The State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Phool Singh", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Dholpur", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Mania", "police_station_or_unit": "Mania Police Station", "court": "Supreme Court of India", "court_as_verified": "Supreme Court of India", "bench": null, "case_title": "The State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Phool Singh", "case_number": "Civil Appeal No. 5930 of 2022", "citation": "2022 LiveLaw (SC) 735", "judges": [ "S. Ravindra Bhat", "Sudhanshu Dhulia" ], "judgment_date": "2022-09-02", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2022, "incident_date": "1987-10-15", "incident_year": 1987, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "extortion", "subcategory": "extortion", "subcategory_display": "extortion", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 392", "Arms Act 1959 s.3", "Arms Act 1959 s.25" ], "officers": [ { "name": "Phool Singh", "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Mania Police Station", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.2, "jev_p_culpable": 0.9, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Phool Singh", "display": "Phool Singh (Constable)" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Mania man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91078594/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-employee-disciplinary-proceedings-criminal-case-acquittal-state-of-rajasthan-vs-phool-singh-2022-livelaw-sc-735-208343" ], "summary": "The Supreme Court set aside judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) that had quashed the disciplinary dismissal of Constable Phool Singh of Mania Police Station, Dholpur. On 15 October 1987, while off-duty but dressed in uniform, Phool Singh accosted motorcyclist Mahesh Kumar, demanded Rs. 100, seized his vehicle upon non-payment, and waved an illegal firearm at a gathering crowd before discharging it. Although an appellate court later acquitted him under Section 392 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act on the ground of benefit of doubt, the Supreme Court ruled that a benefit-of-doubt acquittal is not an honourable acquittal and cannot invalidate departmental proceedings, thereby confirming his dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Supreme Court set aside judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) that had quashed the disciplinary dismissal of Constable Phool Singh of Mania Police Station, Dholpur. On 15 October 1987, while off-duty but dressed in uniform, Phool Singh accosted motorcyclist M. K., demanded Rs. 100, seized his vehicle upon non-payment, and waved an illegal firearm at a gathering crowd before discharging it. Although an appellate court later acquitted him under Section 392 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act on the ground of benefit of doubt, the Supreme Court ruled that a benefit-of-doubt acquittal is not an honourable acquittal and cannot invalidate departmental proceedings, thereby confirming his dismissal.", "court_quote": "Therefore, in the present case the acquittal of the respondent is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a “benefit of doubt”. Under these circumstances and in view of the position of law as stated above, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 29.01.2014 of the learned Single Judge and the order dated 09.09.2020 of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench are hereby set aside.", "court_quote_para": "14", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Supreme Court set aside Rajasthan High Court orders and upheld the disciplinary dismissal of Constable Phool Singh for extortion and brandishing an illegal firearm.", "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": "2022-09-02", "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": "2022 LiveLaw (SC) 735", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91078594/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-employee-disciplinary-proceedings-criminal-case-acquittal-state-of-rajasthan-vs-phool-singh-2022-livelaw-sc-735-208343", "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-11" ], "merged_case_id": "SUPREM-024", "officers_named_public": 1, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2023-0014", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0326", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Bahadur Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.", "display_title_redacted": "Bahadur Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Tonk", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Todaraisingh", "police_station_or_unit": "Sadar Police Station, Tonk", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Bahadur Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13411/2011", "citation": "2023/RJJP/007400", "judges": [ "Anoop Kumar Dhand" ], "judgment_date": "2023-05-03", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2023, "incident_date": "2002-01-18", "incident_year": 2002, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "illegal_detention_false_imprisonment", "subcategory": "illegal_detention_false_imprisonment", "subcategory_display": "illegal detention false imprisonment", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 365", "IPC 342", "IPC 327", "IPC 323", "IPC 120B" ], "officers": [ { "name": "Bahadur Singh", "rank": "Constable", "unit": "Sadar Police Station, Tonk", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.05, "jev_p_culpable": 0.95, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Bahadur Singh", "display": "Bahadur Singh (Constable)" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Todaraisingh man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117852468/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-petition-police-constable-compulsory-retirement-departmental-enquiry-231468" ], "summary": "The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased Constable Bahadur Singh of Sadar Police Station, Tonk, upholding his compulsory retirement for serious misconduct. On 18 January 2002, while unauthorizedly absent from duty, Bahadur Singh and four accomplices abducted a Todaraisingh man, assaulted him, and forcibly obtained his signatures on stamp paper, leading to registration of FIR No. 14/2002 under Sections 365, 342, 327, 323, and 120-B IPC and subsequent departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. Rejecting the claim that his later acquittal by a criminal court vitiated departmental action, the High Court held that the inquiry findings were based on credible evidence and the penalty of compulsory retirement was commensurate with the misconduct. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased Constable Bahadur Singh of Sadar Police Station, Tonk, upholding his compulsory retirement for serious misconduct. On 18 January 2002, while unauthorizedly absent from duty, Bahadur Singh and four accomplices abducted a Todaraisingh man, assaulted him, and forcibly obtained his signatures on stamp paper, leading to registration of FIR No. 14/2002 under Sections 365, 342, 327, 323, and 120-B IPC and subsequent departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. Rejecting the claim that his later acquittal by a criminal court vitiated departmental action, the High Court held that the inquiry findings were based on credible evidence and the penalty of compulsory retirement was commensurate with the misconduct.", "court_quote": "The department has led credible evidence to show that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are neither perverse nor based on 'no evidence'.", "court_quote_para": "20", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ petition and upheld compulsory retirement of Constable Bahadur Singh for abducting and assaulting a civilian to extort signatures on stamp paper.", "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": "2023-05-03", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "2023/RJJP/007400", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117852468/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-petition-police-constable-compulsory-retirement-departmental-enquiry-231468", "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-11" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-008", "officers_named_public": 1, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2023-0053", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1091", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "New Delhi Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "display_title_redacted": "New Delhi Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": null, "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "New Delhi", "police_station_or_unit": "12th Battalion RAC (IR), Chanakyapuri, New Delhi", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "New Delhi Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18980/2017", "citation": "[2023:RJ-JP:23836]; 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1949", "judges": [ "Ashok Kumar Gaur" ], "judgment_date": "2023-09-20", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2023, "incident_date": "2007-09-14", "incident_year": 2007, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 16", "Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 Rule 4(iv)" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, 12th Battalion RAC (IR), C Company, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi", "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, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, 12th Battalion RAC (IR), C Company, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi" } ], "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/122829080/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/09/27/rajasthan-hc-government-servant-uphold-high-conduct-of-rules-private-and-public-life-legal-news/" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable of the 12th Battalion RAC (IR) at Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, was charge-sheeted in September 2007 for indiscipline and leading an immoral life, namely maintaining an illicit relationship despite being married with children and neglecting his family. The court recorded that he did not appear before the inquiry officer, filed no response to the inquiry report, was dismissed in March 2008, and his departmental appeal and review were rejected in 2009 and 2017. The court held codified conduct rules barring an immoral life cannot be tested against mythology or foreign custom, found no infirmity in the inquiry or dismissal, and dismissed the writ. An intra-court appeal (D.B. SAW/916/2023) is noted on the judgment memo. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "Constable of the 12th Battalion RAC (IR) at Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, was charge-sheeted in September 2007 for indiscipline and leading an immoral life, namely maintaining an illicit relationship despite being married with children and neglecting his family. The court recorded that he did not appear before the inquiry officer, filed no response to the inquiry report, was dismissed in March 2008, and his departmental appeal and review were rejected in 2009 and 2017. The court held codified conduct rules barring an immoral life cannot be tested against mythology or foreign custom, found no infirmity in the inquiry or dismissal, and dismissed the writ. An intra-court appeal (D.B. SAW/916/2023) is noted on the judgment memo.", "court_quote": "This Court finds that the Authorities have not committed an error in initiating the enquiry against the petitioner and passing the order by imposing punishment of dismissal from service.", "court_quote_para": "96", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Judgment text verified; RAC constable dismissal for conduct-rule misconduct upheld.", "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": "2023-09-20", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "[2023:RJ-JP:23836]; 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1949", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122829080/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/09/27/rajasthan-hc-government-servant-uphold-high-conduct-of-rules-private-and-public-life-legal-news/", "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-96" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-125-001", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2023-0027", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0580", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Jaipur Man v. State of Rajasthan", "display_title_redacted": "Jaipur Man v. State of Rajasthan", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Jaipur", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Jaipur", "police_station_or_unit": "Police Station Galta Gate (FIR 137/2011)", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Jaipur Man v. State of Rajasthan", "case_number": "D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 596/2016", "citation": "2023:RJ-JP:22328-DB", "judges": [ "Pankaj Bhandari", "Bhuwan Goyal" ], "judgment_date": "2023-09-29", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2023, "incident_date": "2011-05-13", "incident_year": 2011, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "false_implication_fabrication", "subcategory": "false_implication_fabrication", "subcategory_display": "false implication fabrication", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "adverse_finding_compensation", "sections": [ "IPC 498A", "IPC 302" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Sub-Inspector", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2_openrouter:no" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "no", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.67, "jev_p_culpable": 0.48, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Sub-Inspector, Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur" }, { "name": null, "rank": null, "role": "named_only", "unit": "Jaipur police (FIR 137/2011)", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "ledger:named_only", "key2:no", "key2_openrouter:no" ], "ledger_role": "named_only", "key2": "no", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "no", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.93, "jev_p_culpable": 0.03, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": null, "name_public": null, "display": "Police personnel, Jaipur police (FIR 137/2011)" } ], "officer_count": 2, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": 32, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Jaipur man, age 32" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "compensation_only", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": 2500000, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92846988/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-acquits-wrongly-convicted-wife-murder-state-25-lakhs-compensation-malicious-prosecution-239231" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. A Jaipur man was convicted for murdering his wife [name withheld], who self-immolated on 13 May 2011, and sentenced to life plus 3 years under ss.302/498-A IPC, spending over 12 years in jail. The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur) held the suicide proved and the parchabayan concocted by SI in violation of Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules: recorded in five minutes on 95% burns by a non-gazetted officer without independent witnesses, with the fitness doctor unexamined and the Magistrate approached only after death. It held the entire proceedings were initiated just to falsely implicate the husband, allowed the appeal, acquitted him, and awarded Rs.25,00,000 compensation for wrongful prosecution and the Article 21 violation.", "summary_verified": "A Jaipur man was convicted for murdering his wife [name withheld], who self-immolated on 13 May 2011, and sentenced to life plus 3 years under ss.302/498-A IPC, spending over 12 years in jail. The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur) held the suicide proved and the parchabayan concocted by SI in violation of Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules: recorded in five minutes on 95% burns by a non-gazetted officer without independent witnesses, with the fitness doctor unexamined and the Magistrate approached only after death. It held the entire proceedings were initiated just to falsely implicate the husband, allowed the appeal, acquitted him, and awarded Rs.25,00,000 compensation for wrongful prosecution and the Article 21 violation.", "court_quote": "Thus, the entire proceedings have been initiated against the accused just to falsely implicate him.", "court_quote_para": "26", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan HC held suicide proved and husband falsely implicated; acquittal + Rs.25L compensation confirmed.", "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": "2023-09-29", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,500,000.", "disposition": "Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)", "source": "2023:RJ-JP:22328-DB", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92846988/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-acquits-wrongly-convicted-wife-murder-state-25-lakhs-compensation-malicious-prosecution-239231", "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-41" ], "merged_case_id": "SWFALSEI-011", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2024-0002", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0320", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Nand Kishore vs State of Rajasthan", "display_title_redacted": "Nand Kishore vs State of Rajasthan", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Kota", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Kota", "police_station_or_unit": "Traffic Police, Kota", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Nand Kishore vs State of Rajasthan", "case_number": "S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 180/1988", "citation": "2024:RJ-JP:12210", "judges": [ "Mahendar Kumar Goyal" ], "judgment_date": "2024-03-11", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2024, "incident_date": "1983-03-02", "incident_year": 1983, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 161", "PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d)", "PC Act 1947 s.5(2)" ], "officers": [ { "name": "Nand Kishore", "rank": "Head Constable", "unit": "Traffic Police, Kota", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "named_safe", "gate_reasons": [], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.1, "jev_p_culpable": 0.95, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": "Nand Kishore", "display": "Nand Kishore (Head Constable)" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Kota man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "fine", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20606909/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court maintained the conviction of Head Constable Nand Kishore of the Kota Traffic Police under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding and accepting a Rs. 10 bribe from an auto-rickshaw driver in March 1983. Affirming the findings of the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Kota, the High Court held the conviction intact but set aside the substantive sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment in view of the appellant being 72 years old and enduring 41 years of criminal proceedings for a petty bribe. The Court substituted the custodial term with an enhanced fine of Rs. 2,000 on each count. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court maintained the conviction of Head Constable Nand Kishore of the Kota Traffic Police under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding and accepting a Rs. 10 bribe from an auto-rickshaw driver in March 1983. Affirming the findings of the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Kota, the High Court held the conviction intact but set aside the substantive sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment in view of the appellant being 72 years old and enduring 41 years of criminal proceedings for a petty bribe. The Court substituted the custodial term with an enhanced fine of Rs. 2,000 on each count.", "court_quote": "Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 30.04.1988, the substantive sentence awarded to him under Section 161 IPC as also under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 is set aside.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rajasthan High Court maintained PC Act conviction of Traffic Head Constable Nand Kishore for demanding Rs. 10 bribe, modifying sentence to enhanced fine due to 41-year pendency.", "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": null, "action_type": "Conviction", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation", "source": "2024:RJ-JP:12210", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "2024-03-11", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)", "source": "2024:RJ-JP:12210", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20606909/", "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-11" ], "merged_case_id": "RAJAST-002", "officers_named_public": 1, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2025-0036", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1092", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Central Reserve Police Constable No. 850856896 v. Union of India and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Central Reserve Police Constable No. 850856896 v. Union of India and Others", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Dausa", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Bandikui", "police_station_or_unit": "B/19 Battalion CRPF, Barpeta Road", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jaipur", "case_title": "Central Reserve Police Constable No. 850856896 v. Union of India and Others", "case_number": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4181/2001", "citation": "2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 93", "judges": [ "Anoop Kumar Dhand" ], "judgment_date": "2025-02-19", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2025, "incident_date": "1999-10-04", "incident_year": 1999, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable No. 850856896", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "B/19 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Barpeta Road, Assam", "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 No. 850856896, B/19 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Barpeta Road, Assam" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 0, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "central_armed", "primary_source_url": "https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/20520004181200111-590138.pdf", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-upholds-crpf-constable-dismissal-absence-from-duty-285905" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. CRPF Constable, resident of Salve Kala via Bandikui in Dausa, took 15 days sanctioned leave from 4 October 1999, overstayed about 65 days without intimation while false information of his death was sent to the authorities, and rejoined on 27 December 1999. The court recorded dismissal from service on 28 August 2000 after departmental inquiry and rejection of his appeal on 27 December 2000, challenged by a 2001 writ. The court held wilful unauthorised absence by a member of a disciplined force is the gravest misconduct, distinguished the cited precedents on facts, and dismissed the writ, leaving the dismissal intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "CRPF Constable, resident of Salve Kala via Bandikui in Dausa, took 15 days sanctioned leave from 4 October 1999, overstayed about 65 days without intimation while false information of his death was sent to the authorities, and rejoined on 27 December 1999. The court recorded dismissal from service on 28 August 2000 after departmental inquiry and rejection of his appeal on 27 December 2000, challenged by a 2001 writ. The court held wilful unauthorised absence by a member of a disciplined force is the gravest misconduct, distinguished the cited precedents on facts, and dismissed the writ, leaving the dismissal intact.", "court_quote": "Looking to the fact that the petitioner remained willfully absent from duty on unauthorized leaves without sending any intimation to the respondents authorities and looking to the fact that an incorrect information was sent at his instance that he has passed away, such an act of the petitioner amount to gross misconduct. The petitioner has failed to maintain devotion towards his duty and being a member of the disciplined force, such indiscipline on the part of the petitioner cannot be tolerated.", "court_quote_para": "23", "confidence": "medium", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "LiveLaw-hosted judgment and report verify CRPF dismissal for absence and false death report upheld.", "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": "2025-02-19", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 93", "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": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/20520004181200111-590138.pdf", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-upholds-crpf-constable-dismissal-absence-from-duty-285905", "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-96" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP3-126-002", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2025-0043", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0903", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Taranagar Man vs State of Rajasthan", "display_title_redacted": "Taranagar Man vs State of Rajasthan", "state": "Rajasthan", "district": "Churu", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Taranagar", "police_station_or_unit": "Taranagar Police Station", "court": "Rajasthan High Court", "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court", "bench": "Jodhpur", "case_title": "Taranagar Man vs State of Rajasthan", "case_number": "S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 839/2025", "citation": "2025:RJ-JD:30277", "judges": [ "Manoj Kumar Garg" ], "judgment_date": "2025-07-11", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2025, "incident_date": "2025-03-14", "incident_year": 2025, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "false_implication_fabrication", "subcategory": "false_implication_fabrication", "subcategory_display": "false implication fabrication", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "adverse_finding_compensation", "sections": [ "BNS 115(2)", "BNS 140(3)", "BNS 189(2)", "BNS 110", "BNS 117(2)", "BNS 127(2)", "BNS 126(2)", "BNS 140(4)", "BNS 191(3)", "BNS 191(2)", "BNS 190", "BNSS 189" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "SHO", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Taranagar Police Station, Churu", "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": "SHO, Taranagar Police Station, Churu" }, { "name": null, "rank": "Investigating Officer", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Taranagar Police Station, Churu", "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": "Investigating Officer, Taranagar Police Station, Churu" } ], "officer_count": 2, "victims": [ { "age": 29, "gender": "male", "name": null, "descriptor": "Taranagar man, age 29" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "compensation_only", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": 200000, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38132813/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/local/rajasthan/jodhpur/news/rajasthan-high-court-frees-blind-man-framed-in-false-kidnapping-case-orders-compensation-and-probe-against-police-officials-135436325.html" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. A Taranagar man, a resident of Bheemsana (Churu) who the court notes appears to be a visually impaired person, was chargesheeted in FIR 63/2025 at Taranagar for abduction and assault though the written report named Ramniwas, Sonu, Pratap etc., and was lodged in Central Jail Churu. On his brother's plea the SP Churu assigned re-investigation to a trainee IPS officer, who found him falsely implicated, but the Sessions Court rejected the IO's Section 189 BNSS release application on technical grounds. The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) set aside that order and directed his release on a Rs 10,000 bond. The court recorded that law-enforcement officials had deliberately and maliciously implicated an innocent person to shield the actual perpetrators, directed a departmental inquiry against the erring SHO and IO, and ordered Rs 2,00,000 compensation conditional on medical confirmation of the visual impairment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. A Taranagar man, a resident of Bheemsana (Churu) who the court notes appears to be a visually impaired person, was chargesheeted in FIR 63/2025 at Taranagar for abduction and assault though the written report named Ramniwas, Sonu, Pratap etc., and was lodged in Central Jail Churu. On his brother's plea the SP Churu assigned re-investigation to a trainee IPS officer, who found him falsely implicated, but the Sessions Court rejected the IO's Section 189 BNSS release application on technical grounds. The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) set aside that order and directed his release on a Rs 10,000 bond. The court recorded that law-enforcement officials had deliberately and maliciously implicated an innocent person to shield the actual perpetrators, directed a departmental inquiry against the erring SHO and IO, and ordered Rs 2,00,000 compensation conditional on medical confirmation of the visual impairment. The police version is not recorded in the cited text.", "court_quote": "The Station House Officer and the Investigating Officer cannot be absolved of responsibility for their role in falsely implicating the petitioner, ostensibly to shield the actual perpetrators.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; deliberate false implication found, release plus conditional compensation ordered.", "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": "2025-07-11", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Rajasthan High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Rajasthan High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.", "disposition": "Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)", "source": "2025:RJ-JD:30277", "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": [ "summary" ] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38132813/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/local/rajasthan/jodhpur/news/rajasthan-high-court-frees-blind-man-framed-in-false-kidnapping-case-orders-compensation-and-probe-against-police-officials-135436325.html", "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": "GAP2-56-001", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" } ] }