CW-2001-0015Kamrup Metropolitan, AssamJudgment 10 September 2001

Pachim Boragaon, Guwahati Man and Others vs State of Assam and Others

The Gauhati High Court disposed of the writ petition of the wife and children of a Pachim Boragaon, Guwahati man, arrested on 27.11.1998 in a Dispur dacoity case and shot dead the same day by his police escort near Pachim Boragaon. Adopting the District Judge (Kamrup) enquiry report, the court found the handcuffed detenu was shot in the back of the chest though the escort could have fired at his legs. It held the force was in excess of necessity and the police negligent and guilty of misconduct in causing a custodial death. Applying D.K. Basu and Nilabati Behera, the court ordered Rs 2 lakh compensation within three months and directed action against the defaulting personnel plus thorough criminal investigation. 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 10 September 2001 in WP (C) No. 4567 of 1999, the Gauhati High Court (Coram: D. Biswas, J.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Sub-Inspector of Police, Assam Police (Dispur PS case party); Head Constable and armed personnel, Assam Police (escort party), and directed payment of compensation of Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000).

Register number
AS 25 CW 0002
Case reference
WP (C) No. 4567 of 1999 / (2003) 1 GLR 659
Court and date
Gauhati High Court (Coram: D. Biswas, J.), 10 September 2001
Officer(s) at the material time
Sub-Inspector of Police, Assam Police (Dispur PS case party); Head Constable and armed personnel, Assam Police (escort party)
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
Finding of the Court (extract)
“The force applied by the police has been definitely in excess of what was necessary. Therefore, they were negligent and guilty of misconduct in causing the death of a man in custody.” (at para 5)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000).
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 Gauhati High Court judgment dated 10 September 2001 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 force applied by the police has been definitely in excess of what was necessary. Therefore, they were negligent and guilty of misconduct in causing the death of a man in custody.” (para 5)

Institutional response

1
10 Sep 2001

Order issued

Concluded
Gauhati High Court External · Binding

The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: (2003) 1 GLR 659
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.