The Gujarat High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld Rs 1,98,000 with 6% interest awarded to contractor [name withheld], whose right leg was amputated above the knee after on-duty Raigadh Outpost constable shot him in the thigh with his service rifle on 22 April 1976 for protesting the manhandling of his truck driver. The Court held the firing illegal, wrongful and unauthorised, committed during the course of employment, rendering the State vicariously liable and violating the victim's Article 21 right to life. It recorded that the constable had been tried under Section 307 IPC and convicted by the High Court under Section 326 IPC with six months' RI in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1978, a sentence he admitted in evidence to having undergone. (Re-normalised from the 1980 conviction entry to this verified 1998 compensation judgment.). 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 22 December 1998 in First Appeal against judgment dated 03.09.1982 in Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 1979, Civil Judge (S.D.), Himatnagar, the Gujarat High Court (Coram: R. K. Abichandani, J.) returned findings adverse to the Police Constable, Raigadh Outpost, Himatnagar, Sabarkantha, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 2.0 lakh (Rs 1,98,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Gujarat High Court judgment dated 22 December 1998 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.
“The facts which are established in the case clearly show that the respondent No. 2, during the course of his employment as a Constable, had on 22-4-1976, when the respondent No. 1 had come to the Police Outpost, wrongfully and …” (para 17)
The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 198,000.
(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.
