On 22 April 2004 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the Railways' writ appeal and upheld a single judge's direction to pay Rs. 1,00,000 compensation for a custodial death. The deceased, aged about 28, was apprehended by the Railway Protection Force around 00:30 on 1 September 1991, secured in the Tondiarpet Marshalling Yard RPF lock-up at 04:30, and found dead at 05:00. The court found on a preponderance of probabilities that he died on account of torture, rejecting the natural-death defence where no inquest or post-mortem material was preserved or produced. Rs. 50,000 already disbursed was adjusted against the award, with the balance payable with 9% interest. Individual RPF personnel were not identified in the 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 April 2004 in Writ Appeal No. 852 of 2002, the Madras High Court (Coram: P. K. Misra, A. S. Venkatachala Moorthy, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the accused police personnel, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
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 22 April 2004 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.
“In the absence of any prima facie acceptable material, the inevitable conclusion is that the deceased must have died on account of torture.” (para 15)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.
(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.
