The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. A Panskura man, arrested with four others on 8 October 1994, was kept in the Panskura police lock-up without production before a Magistrate, mercilessly tortured, and died on 17 October 1994; police claimed he jumped from a running jeep. On a letter-petition by the Lawyers' Forum for Human Rights, a Division Bench rejected the police story, noting the post-mortem showed death from subdural haemorrhage caused by a hard blunt substance and that the police affidavits were full of contradictions. The court allowed the writ, directed the State to pay Rs 1 lakh divided equally between both widows within two months, and ordered every police station in the State to maintain lock-up and diet registers. Departmental proceedings against SI and ASI were already pending.
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 31 January 1997 in C.C. No. 18207 (W) of 1995, the Calcutta High Court (Coram: Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, Asok Kumar Chakravarty, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Sub-Inspector (then Officer-in-Charge), Panskura Police Station; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Panskura Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Calcutta High Court judgment dated 31 January 1997 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.
“We have no hesitation in holding that this Court was sought to be misled from the very beginning by filing affidavits which could not be relied on as the same were full of contradictions. It is very unfortunate that the …” (para 22)
The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.
(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.
