CW-2010-0014Dharwad, KarnatakaJudgment 12 April 2010

The Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad and Others vs Shivakka w/o Aminabhavi Man and Others

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Police took control of an Aminabhavi man of Aminabhavi on the evening of 27 November 2002, rescuing him from a mob assault in which he had been tied to a telephone pole and beaten, and took him to hospital where three injuries were certified. He suffered multiple fractures and died a homicidal death by shock and haemorrhage while in police power and control over 27-29 November 2002. The Single Judge awarded Rs.3 lakh compensation in 2006; the State appealed contending he was never in police custody. The Division Bench held something damaging and disastrous happened to him within the power and control of the police, found no scope to interfere, dismissed the appeal with Rs.10,000 costs, and directed Rs.2 lakh in term deposit with Rs.1 lakh plus interest released to the widow.

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 12 April 2010 in Writ Appeal under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act (against W.P. No. 20333/2004, 07.12.2006), the Karnataka High Court (Coram: D. V. Shylendra Kumar, N. Ananda, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the accused police personnel, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).

Register number
KA 25 CW 0002
Case reference
Writ Appeal under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act (against W.P. No. 20333/2004, 07.12.2006)
Court and date
Karnataka High Court (Coram: D. V. Shylendra Kumar, N. Ananda, JJ.), 12 April 2010
Officer(s) at the material time
Not identified in the cited sources (Dharwad police (custody 27-29 November 2002))
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Not stated in the cited sources
Finding of the Court (extract)
“something damaging, disastrous had happened to deceased [name withheld] while he was within the power and control of the Police”
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
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 Karnataka High Court judgment dated 12 April 2010 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.

“something damaging, disastrous had happened to deceased [name withheld] while he was within the power and control of the Police”

Institutional response

1
12 Apr 2010

Order issued

Concluded
Karnataka High Court External · Binding

The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: Writ Appeal under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act (against W.P. No. 20333/2004, 07.12.2006)
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.