CW-2010-0027Tiruchirappalli, Tamil NaduJudgment 23 April 2010

Tiruchirappalli Man v. State of Tamil Nadu \& Ors.

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Tiruchirappalli man, a retired Fire Officer, was picked up on 4 January 2008 and illegally detained at Edamalaipattiputhur police station, where he was beaten with lathis with his hands tied by a group led by DSP (Vigilance) [name withheld]. An FIR was registered only on 6 January 2008 before remand; the jail doctor recorded contusions on both hands at admission. He was hospitalised on 12 January 2008 and died on 22 January 2008. The court held the illegal arrest without D.K. Basu compliance and the lock-up torture proved by the jail admission record, accident register and hospital history sheet, and directed the State to pay Rs.5 lakhs within eight weeks, declining recovery from officers since the Government had dropped further action on the RDO report. 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 23 April 2010 in W.P. No. 17837 of 2008, the Madras High Court (Coram: K. Chandru, J.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Vigilance; Inspector of Police, Edamalaipattiputhur Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).

Register number
TN 45 CW 0004
Case reference
W.P. No. 17837 of 2008 / MANU/TN/0425/2010
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: K. Chandru, J.), 23 April 2010
Officer(s) at the material time
Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Vigilance; Inspector of Police, Edamalaipattiputhur Police Station
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“This Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a strong case regarding the illegal arrest of her husband and the subsequent torture in the police lock-up before the admission to Central Prison. Moreover, the petitioner's husband …” (at para 16)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).
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 Madras High Court judgment dated 23 April 2010 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.

“This Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a strong case regarding the illegal arrest of her husband and the subsequent torture in the police lock-up before the admission to Central Prison. Moreover, the petitioner's husband …” (para 16)

Institutional response

1
23 Apr 2010

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: MANU/TN/0425/2010
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.