CW-2006-0005Darrang, AssamJudgment 16 June 2006

State of Assam v. Tarulata Devi

remove 'after the Supreme Court's remand' (no SC mention in either judgment); remove or source 'ULFA' (TADA context only, SJ mentions TADA once re co-accused; 'ULFA' nowhere); state police version (escape bid, fall on handcuff — DB paras 8, 11, 15). [name withheld] is named only as an accused in CBI FIR RC-6/S/2001 registered on the Single Judge's direction; the court recorded no personal finding and expressly declined to record guilt against any person while investigation was pending. 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 16 June 2006, the Gauhati High Court (Coram: B.P. Katakey, J.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Officer-in-Charge, Mangaldoi Police Station, Darrang; Officer-in-Charge, Khoirabari Police Station, Darrang, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000).

Register number
AS 13 CW 0002
Case reference
(2007) 2 GLR 217
Court and date
Gauhati High Court (Coram: B.P. Katakey, J.), 16 June 2006
Officer(s) at the material time
Officer-in-Charge, Mangaldoi Police Station, Darrang; Officer-in-Charge, Khoirabari Police Station, Darrang
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“[name withheld] was brutally tortured by the police personnel while he was in custody.” (at para 11)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000).
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 Gauhati High Court judgment dated 16 June 2006 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.

“[name withheld] was brutally tortured by the police personnel while he was in custody.” (para 11)

Institutional response

1
16 Jun 2006

Order issued

Concluded
Gauhati High Court External · Binding

The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: (2007) 2 GLR 217
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.