CW-2003-0013Central Delhi, DelhiJudgment 19 December 2003

New Delhi Woman vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

The Delhi High Court (Vikramajit Sen, J.) awarded Rs 5,00,000 for the custodial death of three-wheeler driver [name withheld], arrested in a traffic challan case on 7 April 2000 and dead the next afternoon, holding blatant and blameworthy non-compliance with the D.K. Basu imperatives for which each respondent was jointly and severally answerable. Though the inquest found no manhandling and death by cardiac failure, the Court held the failure to inform his wife — despite her rounds of the police station, police post and PCR — blameworthy, since informing the family could have flagged his bypass-surgery history and secured surety for bail. Rs 4,00,000 was to be paid by the State (respondents 1-2) and Rs 25,000 each by respondents 3 to 6, with Rs 10,000 in costs. 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 19 December 2003, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Vikramajit Sen, J.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Head Constable, Delhi Police (Paharganj); Head Constable, Delhi Police (Paharganj), and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).

Register number
DL 06 CW 0009
Case reference
108 (2003) DLT 718; 2004 (72) DRJ 644
Court and date
Delhi High Court (Coram: Vikramajit Sen, J.), 19 December 2003
Officer(s) at the material time
Head Constable, Delhi Police (Paharganj); Head Constable, Delhi Police (Paharganj)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Not stated in the cited sources
Finding of the Court (extract)
“I am satisfied that there has been blatant and blameworthy non-compliance with the imperatives enunciated in D.K. Basu's case, for which each of the Respondents is jointly as well as severally answerable and liable.” (at para 10)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).
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 Delhi High Court judgment dated 19 December 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.

“I am satisfied that there has been blatant and blameworthy non-compliance with the imperatives enunciated in D.K. Basu's case, for which each of the Respondents is jointly as well as severally answerable and liable.” (para 10)

Institutional response

1
19 Dec 2003

Order issued

Concluded
Delhi High Court External · Binding

The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 108 (2003) DLT 718; 2004 (72) DRJ 644
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.