remove/replace final sentence; State explanation + admission recorded. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
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 →By judgment dated 5 November 2015 in WP(Crl.) No. 07 of 2014, the Gauhati High Court (Coram: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Arresting officers, Aalo Police Station (Aalo PS Case 7/2014); Sub-Inspector of Police, Naharlagun Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 50,000.
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 5 November 2015 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
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.
Holding not recorded separately.
“admittedly, the fundamental right of petitioner's brother under Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India was violated”
The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.
(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.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.
