CW-1998-0011Tiruchirappalli, Tamil NaduJudgment 9 September 1998

Vaiyampatti Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

The Madras High Court (P. Sathasivam, J.) allowed a public interest writ petition over the events of 13 December 1989 at Vaiyampatti, where a Vaiyampatti man, picked up for interrogation in a theft complaint, was found hanging from a tree inside the police station premises, and police firing on the protesting mob killed a Vaiyampatti man and injured nine others. The court held that the Vaiyampatti police officers alone were responsible for a Vaiyampatti man's custodial death, noting the Sub-Collector's enquiry and the Sessions Judge's observations. While accepting that the police firing itself was justified, the court enhanced the ex gratia relief, awarding Rs.1,00,000 to a Vaiyampatti man's widow, Rs.50,000 each to a Vaiyampatti man's parents, Rs.5,000 each to the nine injured, and Rs.1,000 costs, all payable within four weeks. 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 9 September 1998 in W.P. No. 10 of 1990, the Madras High Court (Coram: P. Sathasivam, J.) returned findings adverse to 3 police personnel, namely: Sub-Inspector (Crime), Manapparai; Sub-Inspector (Law & Order), Vaiyampatti Police Station; Grade I Police Constable 1682, Vaiyampatti Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,45,000).

Register number
TN 45 CW 0001
Case reference
W.P. No. 10 of 1990 / 1998(3) CTC 628
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: P. Sathasivam, J.), 9 September 1998
Officer(s) at the material time
Sub-Inspector (Crime), Manapparai; Sub-Inspector (Law & Order), Vaiyampatti Police Station; Grade I Police Constable 1682, Vaiyampatti Police Station
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 321 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“The fact remains that the Police Officers concerned in that Police Station were alone responsible for the death of a Vaiyampatti man” (at para 9)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,45,000).
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 9 September 1998 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.

“The fact remains that the Police Officers concerned in that Police Station were alone responsible for the death of a Vaiyampatti man” (para 9)

Institutional response

1
9 Sep 1998

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 245,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 1998(3) CTC 628
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.