CW-2026-0036Dima Hasao, AssamJudgment 26 August 2026

Maibang Resident v. State of Assam & Ors.

The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. On 25 January 2018, an anti-Greater Nagalim protest at Maibang Railway Station turned violent with railway property damaged and stones pelted, and police firing from the platform killed a Maibang resident and a Maibang resident and seriously injured a Maibang woman, a Maibang resident and a Maibang resident The Court declined to hold the firing unprovoked but found the above-waist bullet injuries established excessive force violating the victims' fundamental rights, holding sovereign immunity no defence to such violations. It awarded Rs 3,00,000 each to the families of the two deceased and Rs 2,00,000 each to the three injured (Rs 12,00,000 total) within three months, borne by the State. Subcategory corrected from fake encounter to disproportionate force: this was excessive crowd-control firing, not a staged encounter. 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 26 August 2026 in WP(C) No. 652 of 2018, the Gauhati High Court (Coram: Kalyan Rai Surana, N. Unni Krishnan Nair, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the accused police personnel, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 12 lakh (Rs 12,00,000).

Register number
AS 08 CW 0002
Case reference
WP(C) No. 652 of 2018 / 2026:GAU-AS:12436
Court and date
Gauhati High Court (Coram: Kalyan Rai Surana, N. Unni Krishnan Nair, JJ.), 26 August 2026
Officer(s) at the material time
Not identified in the cited sources (Assam Police (Dima Hasao); Maibang PS)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Not stated in the cited sources
Finding of the Court (extract)
“The nature of injuries, projected to have been suffered by the victims, would go to reveal that either on account of the lack of understanding of the situation and/or being so distracted by the stone pelting incident occasioning in the …” (at para 16)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 12 lakh (Rs 12,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

Judgment dated 26 August 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Recorded allegations

1
Protest policingPrimary
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.

“The nature of injuries, projected to have been suffered by the victims, would go to reveal that either on account of the lack of understanding of the situation and/or being so distracted by the stone pelting incident occasioning in the …” (para 16)

Institutional response

1
26 Aug 2026

Order issued

Concluded
Gauhati High Court External · Binding

The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,200,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 2026:GAU-AS:12436
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.