The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. On 23 May 2013, 22-year-old an Amritsar man alias an Amritsar man was sitting inside a barber shop in Amritsar when Head Constable and Head Constable approached and shot him at point-blank range in the chest, killing him instantly. Police claimed they fired in self-defense against a knife attack and registered an FIR against the deceased, while repeatedly submitting cancellation reports in the subsequent inquiry against the police officers. The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the self-defense theory, pointing out that trained police armed with service pistols could easily apprehend a knife-wielding suspect without shooting at point-blank range into his chest. Finding that the killing constituted an extra-judicial execution by law enforcement donning the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the High Court awarded Rs. 15,00,000 compensation to the deceased mother. 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 20 May 2025 in CRM-M-12183-2016, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Harpreet Singh Brar, J.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Head Constable, Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar; Head Constable, Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 15 lakh (Rs 15,00,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Judgment dated 20 May 2025. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
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.
“Allowing the act of respondent No.5 to go unchecked would effectively mean validating a death sentence, passed not in line with the due process of law, but by the law enforcement agency donning the role of the judge, jury and …” (para 10)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,500,000.
(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.
