A Division Bench upheld the SHRC finding that 63-year-old a Marthandam man was falsely implicated in a gutka case, illegally arrested and assaulted in custody at Kotticode police station on 30-31 May 2019, sustaining head injuries proved by medical records. The court rejected the police claim that a Marthandam man injured himself as fantastic and fastened liability on the DSP who directed the action, the Inspector who made the illegal arrest without following D.K. Basu guidelines, and two special-squad members. It dismissed the officers writ petitions and confirmed the SHRC award of Rs.6,00,000 compensation with recovery of Rs.3,00,000 from the DSP and Rs.1,00,000 each from the other three. 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 27 February 2026 in W.P.(MD) Nos.22673, 24168, 23338 and 23362 of 2022 and 14715 of 2023, the Madras High Court (Coram: G.R. Swaminathan, R. Kalaimathi, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: A.C. Karthikeyan (Deputy Superintendent of Police); R. Senthilkumar (Inspector of Police); Mohan Kumar; M. Stephen Arul Raj, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 6 lakh (Rs 6,00,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Judgment dated 27 February 2026. 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.
“We can invoke the rule of commonsense and easily conclude that the story that the complainant hit himself and that is how the head injuries were caused is fantastic.” (para 10)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 600,000.
(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.
