The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Bhanumathi petitioned under Article 226 for her son [name withheld], who sustained a head injury needing eight stitches around 20-21 April 2008 and was then booked in a theft case (Crime No.80/2008, Poothalur P.S.) while his own assault complaint (Crime No.81/2008) was closed without proper investigation. The court found his injuries undisputed (admitted in R4's counter and medical records, para 7), held it had reason to believe respondents 4-11 were involved in the assault, and faulted SI for pursuing only the theft case while purposely omitting all evidence-gathering in Crime No.81/2008 (para 15). Relying on Nilabati Behera, D.K. Basu, Rini Johar and T. Sekaran, the court allowed the writ and directed the State to pay Selvaraj Rs.3,00,000 with 6% p.a. interest from 19.07.2010 within six weeks. It held the State vicariously liable for the Article 21 violation and noted the victim could also claim under the s.357-A CrPC Victim Compensation Scheme. Respondents 1-3 and R4 denied the allegations and questioned maintainability (para 8). 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 16 December 2016 in W.P.(MD) No.9606 of 2010, the Madras High Court (Coram: M.V. Muralidaran, J.) returned findings adverse to 3 police personnel, namely: Sub-Inspector of Police, Highway Patrol, Thanjavur District; Sub-Inspector of Police, PCR Wing, Nagapattinam District; Head Constable, Thirukkattupalli Police Station, Thanjavur District, 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 16 December 2016 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 offenders who assaulted the petitioner's son were not prosecuted by the State since the State did not investigate the case properly in Crime Number: 81 of 2008 on the file of the Poothalur Police Station.” (para 15)
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.
