CW-2003-0005Ranchi, JharkhandJudgment 2 June 2003

Ranchi Man vs State of Bihar and Ors.

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. A Ranchi man @ a Ranchi man was apprehended along with two others by Jagannathpur police on 27 July 1990 following an alleged dacoity, and was brutally assaulted with rifle butts and iron rods in a police jeep, resulting in his custodial death. The trial court convicted the accused police personnel in Sessions Trial No. 551 of 1993. On a writ petition by the deceased's widow, the Jharkhand High Court held that the factum of brutal custodial killing in violation of Article 21 was shocking beyond words and directed the State to pay Rs. 10,00,000 in compensation to the widow and three minor children. 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 2 June 2003 in C.W.J.C. No. 3088 of 1996(R), the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Tapen Sen, J.) returned findings adverse to the Police personnel, Jagannathpur Police Station, Ranchi, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000).

Register number
JH 01 CW 0003
Case reference
C.W.J.C. No. 3088 of 1996(R) / 2003 CriLJ 3803
Court and date
Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Tapen Sen, J.), 2 June 2003
Officer(s) at the material time
Police personnel, Jagannathpur Police Station, Ranchi
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; the Arms Act, 1959
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Consequently, it was held that the charges levelled against all the nine police personnels were proved and they were held guilty and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court sentenced them to undergo rigorous …” (at para 4)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

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

The Jharkhand High Court judgment dated 2 June 2003 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
Custodial deathPrimary
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.

“Consequently, it was held that the charges levelled against all the nine police personnels were proved and they were held guilty and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court sentenced them to undergo rigorous …” (para 4)

Institutional response

1
2 Jun 2003

Order issued

Concluded
Jharkhand High Court External · Binding

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

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 2003 CriLJ 3803
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.