Advocate a man, his wife and two-year-old child vanished after driving to PS City Ropar on 25 January 1993 and were never found; Ropar police instead built the murder case against a man, who agreed under police pressure to own the killings to save his life. The CBI report commissioned by the Supreme Court proved beyond reasonable doubt that a man's confession was falsely recorded and the Bhakra Canal car recovery falsely shown, naming an SI, ASI, Inspector and DSP prima facie responsible for false implication under Sections 194, 211 and 218 IPC and indicting a DIG for lack of supervision. The Supreme Court ordered a man's immediate release with Rs. 2,00,000 compensation (recoverable from the officers personally on conviction) and Rs. 10,00,000 to the advocate's parents. It transferred the trial to Chandigarh, ordered sanction decisions within a month, suspension of the officers during trial, and left the abduction and murder charge to the trial court. 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 10 May 1996, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: Kuldip Singh, Faizan Uddin, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 5 police personnel, namely: Sub-Inspector, Ropar Police, Punjab Police; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Ropar Police, Punjab Police; Inspector, Ropar Police, Punjab Police; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police; Deputy Inspector General, Punjab Police, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 12 lakh (Rs 12,00,000).
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 10 May 1996 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 abduction and murder of [a man] and his family was the most heinous crime against humanity.” (para 2)
The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,200,000.
(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.
