The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Tiruchirappalli man was picked up from his residence for interrogation around 5 a.m. on 5 April 1995 by Inspector, [name withheld] and other police officials, and died the same day; the post-mortem found death by shock and haemorrhage from multiple contusions. A single judge allowed his widow's writ petition in 2017 and awarded Rs.10.5 lakh compensation against the State. On 26 June 2025 a Division Bench dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the injuries could only have been inflicted by the police in whose custody a Tiruchirappalli man was, that the benefit-of-doubt acquittal of A2 (the product of a half-baked investigation confined to two officers) was no bar to compensation, and that the victim-compensation scheme cap did not apply. The court confirmed the compensation and ordered disbursal of the amount lying in court deposit with accrued interest. 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 26 June 2025 in W.A. No. 2874 of 2023, the Madras High Court (Coram: Anita Sumanth, N. Senthilkumar, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Inspector of Police, Uraiyur Police Station, Tiruchirappalli; Police personnel, Police team, Uraiyur Police Station matter, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 10.5 lakh (Rs 10,50,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Judgment dated 26 June 2025. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
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.
“This fact is admitted and in light of the same, particularly on account of the fact that he was in the custody of the police during the period when the contusions had occurred leading to hemorrhage and subsequent death, there …” (para 15)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,050,000.
(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.
