Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Fatehpur man of village Haibatpur lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, against Constable for extorting a bribe in a cattle trespass dispute. In retaliation, Station House Officer Ram Sagar Yadav dispatched two constables to arrest a Fatehpur man on a trumped-up dacoity charge on 29 August 1969, where he was mercilessly beaten inside Hussainganj Police Station. When brought in a collapsed state to the Additional District Magistrate for remand, a Fatehpur man made a dying declaration naming the Darogah and constables before succumbing to nineteen injuries later that evening. The Sessions Judge convicted the SHO and three constables under Section 304 Part II IPC (and the SHO under Section 220 IPC), but the Allahabad High Court acquitted them. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court acquittal and affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding the dying declaration unimpeachable and famously recommending that the legislature amend the law on the burden of proof in custodial violence cases. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →By judgment dated 18 January 1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1975, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: Y.V. Chandrachud, Amarendra Nath Sen, JJ.) recorded the conviction of 4 police personnel, namely: Ram Sagar Yadav (Station House Officer); Shobha Nath @ Pujari (Constable); Constable, Hussainganj Police Station; Constable, Hussainganj Police Station.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Supreme Court of India judgment dated 18 January 1985 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Holding not recorded separately.
“Police Officers alone, and none else, can give evidence as regards the circumstances in which a person in their custody comes to receive injuries while in their custody. Bound by ties of a kind of brotherhood, they often prefer to …” (para n/a)
The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.