CW-1994-0009Tirupattur, Tamil NaduJudgment 17 August 1994

Pudupet Man vs State of Tamil Nadu

The Madras High Court (Mishra, J.) allowed the writ petition of Baggiam Doraiswamy, whose 21-year-old son [name withheld], an automobile mechanic branded a naxalite on landlords' complaints, was produced by his own parents before the police on 25 November 1976 and killed on 11 January 1977 at Nainathiyur village near Pudupet. The court rejected the police encounter story, accepting the Sub-Collector's inquest and the Board of Revenue Member's findings that policemen brutally beat a Pudupet man after capture, concealed facts, filed a false complaint and burnt the body. Holding policemen alone responsible for the death and the criminal acquittal no bar, the court directed the State to pay Rs.1,00,000, retained and invested so as to yield the petitioner not less than Rs.1,000 per month for life. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 17 August 1994 in W.P. No. 2470 of 1984, the Madras High Court (Coram: Mishra, J.) returned findings adverse to the Police personnel, Thirupathur Taluk police, North Arcot district, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).

Register number
TN 83 CW 0001
Case reference
W.P. No. 2470 of 1984 / 1994 (2) LW (Crl) 687
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: Mishra, J.), 17 August 1994
Officer(s) at the material time
Police personnel, Thirupathur Taluk police, North Arcot district
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“On an independent assessment of the facts as aforementioned, which are not in controversy, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has made out a positive case of assault upon her son by the police and that policemen …” (at para 8)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Madras High Court judgment dated 17 August 1994 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
Custodial deathPrimary
Material fact supported

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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“On an independent assessment of the facts as aforementioned, which are not in controversy, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has made out a positive case of assault upon her son by the police and that policemen …” (para 8)

Institutional response

1
17 Aug 1994

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 1994 (2) LW (Crl) 687
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.