CW-2010-0018Kozhikode, KeralaJudgment 31 August 2010

Kozhikode Man vs State of Kerala

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. On 9 January 1985, the plaintiff, then a 10th-standard student, suffered serious head injuries inside his school campus at Vellimadukunnu, was hospitalised for nearly a month, and underwent emergency burr-hole surgery for extradural haemorrhage. He alleged police entered the campus and lathi-charged students, supported by a fellow student and hospital records, while the State claimed he fell while fleeing but led no evidence. The Division Bench reversed the trial court's dismissal, held on preponderance of probability that the injuries were attributable to police action, rejected the Police Act limitation bar since the assault was no part of official duty, and decreed Rs.80,000 with 6% interest with 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 31 August 2010 in A.S. No. 79 of 1997, the Kerala High Court (Coram: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, P. Bhavadasan, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the accused police personnel, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 80,000.

Register number
KL 11 CW 0001
Case reference
A.S. No. 79 of 1997 / 2010 (4) KLT 261
Court and date
Kerala High Court (Coram: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, P. Bhavadasan, JJ.), 31 August 2010
Officer(s) at the material time
Not identified in the cited sources (Chevayur Police Station, Kozhikode)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Not stated in the cited sources
Finding of the Court (extract)
“We, on the totality of the materials on record, hold that on a preponderance of probability, the plaintiff has established that the injuries sustained by him were attributable to the actions of police Officials.” (at para 15 (quote closes para 15, which begins '15. The version of PW2...'))
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 80,000.
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 Kerala High Court judgment dated 31 August 2010 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
Protest policingPrimary
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.

“We, on the totality of the materials on record, hold that on a preponderance of probability, the plaintiff has established that the injuries sustained by him were attributable to the actions of police Officials.” (para 15 (quote closes para 15, which begins '15. The version of PW2...'))

Institutional response

1
31 Aug 2010

Order issued

Concluded
Kerala High Court External · Binding

The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 80,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 2010 (4) KLT 261
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.