CW-1997-0010Ananthapuramu, Andhra PradeshJudgment 13 November 1997

Tadipatri Man vs S.H.O. and Ors.

Acting on newspaper reports in Eenadu, the High Court held that a Tadipatri man, a poor coolie, was illegally detained at Tadipatri Rural Police Station on 31 August 1997 and tortured to death by police personnel after failing to satisfy their demands. The CID investigation and post-mortem report confirmed severe multiple ante-mortem injuries, including a skull fracture and broken ribs, holding the Sub-Inspector, Head Constable, and Constable responsible. Finding a gross violation of Article 21, the Court awarded Rs 1,50,000 compensation to the deceased wife and son and directed the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadipatri to conduct an enquiry into broader allegations of police extortion and torture in the area. 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 13 November 1997, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Coram: Y. Bhaskar Rao, K.B. Siddappa, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural Police Station; Head Constable, Tadipatri Rural Police Station; Police Constable, Tadipatri Rural Police Station; Inspector of Police, Tadipatri, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000).

Register number
AP 39 CW 0013
Case reference
1997 (6) ALT 278
Court and date
Andhra Pradesh High Court (Coram: Y. Bhaskar Rao, K.B. Siddappa, JJ.), 13 November 1997
Officer(s) at the material time
Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural Police Station; Head Constable, Tadipatri Rural Police Station; Police Constable, Tadipatri Rural Police Station; Inspector of Police, Tadipatri
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Thus, it is established that the deceased succumbed to the injuries due to torture by the police in the lock-up.” (at para 7)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000).
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 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment dated 13 November 1997 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.

“Thus, it is established that the deceased succumbed to the injuries due to torture by the police in the lock-up.” (para 7)

Institutional response

1
13 Nov 1997

Order issued

Concluded
Andhra Pradesh High Court External · Binding

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 1997 (6) ALT 278
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.