CW-2013-0023Cuddalore, Tamil NaduJudgment 2 April 2013

Virudhachalam Man vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A. Selvi, widow of a Virudhachalam man, sought compensation after her husband was assaulted by an SI and constables at Virudhachalam bus stand on 07.11.2004, detained, and found dead on 08.11.2004. Adopting the RDO report (25.04.2005) and the SHRC order (02.04.2007) holding it a custodial death with grievous injuries at police hands, the court held it an admitted fact that a Virudhachalam man died only due to assault and torture by police personnel in custody. It held the SHRC's Rs.1,50,000 meagre and enhanced compensation to Rs.5,90,000 (multiplier method), directing the State to deposit the Rs.4,40,000 balance within two months. On appeal (W.A. No.2389/2013, 03.09.2018), the Division Bench declined interest, noting a medical report attributing death to metabolic changes, but treated the Rs.1,50,000 already paid as interest so the full Rs.5,90,000 stands. 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 2 April 2013 in W.P. No.30298 of 2005, the Madras High Court (Coram: T. Raja, J.) returned findings adverse to the accused police personnel, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5.9 lakh (Rs 5,90,000).

Register number
TN 31 CW 0007
Case reference
W.P. No.30298 of 2005
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: T. Raja, J.), 2 April 2013
Officer(s) at the material time
Not identified in the cited sources (Virudhachalam 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)
“as in this case, it is also an admitted fact that the deceased [name withheld] died only due to the assault and torture made by the police personals during the police custody, as a result, the poor family of the …” (at para 9)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 5.9 lakh (Rs 5,90,000).
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 2 April 2013 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.

“as in this case, it is also an admitted fact that the deceased [name withheld] died only due to the assault and torture made by the police personals during the police custody, as a result, the poor family of the …” (para 9)

Institutional response

1
2 Apr 2013

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 590,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: W.P. No.30298 of 2005
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.