CW-2005-0010Tiruchirappalli, Tamil NaduJudgment 29 November 2005

T. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to Dalit agricultural laborer the complainant and her husband [name withheld] from Rs 75,000 to Rs 5,00,000 for custodial rape and illegal confinement by a Sub-Inspector in July 1989. The victim had been called to the police station where her husband was held, threatened, stripped of jewelry, and subjected to custodial rape. Chief Justice A.P. Shah held that rape by police officers constitutes a gross violation of fundamental rights and human dignity under Article 21, warranting public law compensation. The Court ordered the State to pay the enhanced amount with 6% interest, granted liberty to recover the sum from delinquent police personnel, and directed the government to consider allotting agricultural land under the THADCO scheme. 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 29 November 2005 in W.A. No. 1167 of 1998, the Madras High Court (Coram: A.P. Shah, C.J., F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J., JJ.) returned findings adverse to the Sub-Inspector of Police, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).

Register number
TN 45 CW 0002
Case reference
W.A. No. 1167 of 1998 / 2006 (1) MLJ 108
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: A.P. Shah, C.J., F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J., JJ.), 29 November 2005
Officer(s) at the material time
Sub-Inspector of Police
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
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Where a heinous crime of rape committed by the police personnel, who are public functionaries, the matter clearly relates to the violation of basic human rights as well as Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21” (at para 8)
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 Madras High Court judgment dated 29 November 2005 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
Custodial torturePrimary
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.

“Where a heinous crime of rape committed by the police personnel, who are public functionaries, the matter clearly relates to the violation of basic human rights as well as Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21” (para 8)

Institutional response

1
29 Nov 2005

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

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

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 2006 (1) MLJ 108
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.