The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Chunambedu man (42), arrested on 12 February 2008 in a Prohibition Act case by Chunambedu police, told his wife on 14 February 2008 that he had been tortured, and was brought dead to Royapettah Hospital from Puzhal prison on 15 February 2008. The SDM enquiry under PSO 151 found he was tortured with third-degree methods before prison admission with a false no-injury entry, recommending departmental and criminal action against six policemen. The State paid Rs.3 lakhs compensation (Rs.1 lakh plus Rs.2 lakhs on NHRC direction) and issued a show-cause notice to recover Rs.50,000 from each of the six. The court dismissed the policemen writ petitions, holding the recoveries shall continue without prejudice to departmental action and NHRC proceedings. 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 28 September 2011 in W.P. No. 17327 of 2011, the Madras High Court (Coram: K. Chandru, J.) returned findings adverse to 6 police personnel, namely: Woman Sub-Inspector, Chunambedu Police Station; Head Constable, Chunambedu Police Station; Deputy Superintendent of Police (former Inspector), Chunambedu Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Chunambedu Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Chunambedu Police Station; Police Constable, Chunambedu Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
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 28 September 2011 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 conduct of the policemen in treating an under trial and applying a third degree method against him cannot be condoned.” (para 11)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.
(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.
