The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Following an inter-religious or inter-caste marriage between a Bareilly woman and a Bareilly man, Bareilly police unlawfully detained the couple and relatives in July 1993 under the pretext that a Bareilly woman had been abducted and raped. Police officers physically assaulted a Bareilly man and his brother with dandas and subjected a Bareilly woman to severe physical and psychological torture, poking a danda into her stomach and keeping her awake to compel her to falsely implicate her husband. The Supreme Court accepted the inquiry report of the District Judge, Bareilly, which thoroughly indicted the police for illegal arrest, physical torture, and fabrication of Section 161 CrPC statements. Condemning the uncivilized conduct of the police, the Supreme Court ordered criminal prosecution of all involved officers and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay compensation of Rs 10,000 each to a Bareilly woman and a Bareilly man and Rs 5,000 to each other illegally detained relative, recoverable personally from the officers. 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 6 October 1994, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: S. Mohan, S.B. Majmudar, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: J.C. Upadhyay (Station House Officer); Sukhpal Singh (Senior Sub-Inspector); Narendrapal Singh (Sub-Inspector); K.C. Tyagi (Investigating Officer), and directed payment of compensation of Rs 25,000.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Supreme Court of India judgment dated 6 October 1994 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.
“This clearly brings out not only high-handedness of the police but also uncivilised behaviour on their part. It is difficult to understand why Sukhpal Singh SSI assaulted a Bareilly woman on her leg with danda and poked it in her …” (para 4)
The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.
(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.
