The Madras High Court (Madurai) held that S. Indra's husband [name withheld], detained by the Trichy Railway Police in a cell-phone theft case (Crime No.67 of 2007), died while in the custody of the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Tiruchirappalli (R5), while being escorted to Madurai by R7 and R8 (para 10). The respondents' counter stated he had stolen two cell phones of co-passengers and died jumping out of the train between Chettiyapatty and Vaiyampatty stations (paras 4, 7). The court recorded the State's admission that a PSO enquiry had revealed R5 assaulted the deceased and that criminal and disciplinary proceedings had been launched (G.O.Ms.No.298 dated 03.04.2009), with Rs.5,00,000 paid on the NHRC's recommendation (paras 8, 10). It held the State vicariously liable (para 11), found Rs.5,00,000 inadequate (para 13), declined a CBCID investigation, and directed the Home Secretary to consider enhancement after a detailed enquiry by an officer of Superintendent of Police rank (paras 14-15). The writ petition was disposed of with those directions. 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 3 March 2017 in W.P.(MD) No.14581 of 2010, the Madras High Court (Coram: M. V. Muralidaran, J.) returned findings adverse to 3 police personnel, namely: Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Tiruchirappalli; Head Police Constable (No.1178), Railway Police Station, Madurai; Police Constable (No.124), Railway Police Station, Tiruchirappalli, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).
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 3 March 2017 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.
“On perusal of available records and as well as the counter of the 1st respondent undoubtedly it is demonstrated that the petitioner's husband died while under the custody of the 5th respondent and thereupon appropriate criminal and disciplinary actions were …” (para 10)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.
(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.
