The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition of Durga Devi Katholiya, holding the State liable for the custodial death of her 41-year-old husband [name withheld] at PS Arjuni, Dhamtari. The court found he was hale and hearty when produced before the CJM at 5 p.m. on 31 March 2025 but was declared dead three hours later with 24 ante-mortem injuries, the cause of death being asphyxia. It held the death was the result of custodial violence and police atrocities in breach of Article 21, and directed Rs 3 lakh to the widow (for herself and two minor children) and Rs 1 lakh each to the parents within eight weeks, with 9% interest on default. The court also directed sensitisation of police personnel and strict adherence to the D.K. Basu guidelines. 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 6 October 2025 in WPCR No. 373 of 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court (Coram: Ramesh Sinha, Bibhu Datta Guru, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the SHO, PS Arjuni, Dhamtari, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Judgment dated 6 October 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.
“These circumstances leave no manner of doubt that the death was not natural but the result of custodial violence and police atrocities, in complete breach of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” (para 28)
The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 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.
