Kerala HC Dismisses Police Officer's Second Appeals, Upholds Compensation for Manhandling a Lawyer

A civil police officer who assaulted a young lawyer at the scene of an incident in 2010 failed to adduce any evidence across two rounds of litigation; the Kerala High Court dismisses his second appeals and awards additional litigation costs of Rs 15,000.

Justice Easwaran S., sitting singly at the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, dismissed two Regular Second Appeals on 29 June 2026, filed by Sukumaran P. N., a Civil Police Officer attached to the Kadavanthara Police Station, Kochi. The appeals challenged concurrent findings by the trial court and the first appellate court that Sukumaran had manhandled a lawyer, Vimal K. Charles, following an incident on 30 April 2010. Both courts below had held the officer liable to pay compensation; the High Court found no substantial question of law to justify interference and saddled the officer with costs of Rs 15,000 on top of the awarded compensation.

The Incident and the Two Suits

The dispute traces back to the night of 30 April 2010. According to the plaintiff, Vimal K. Charles, he telephoned the Kadavanthara Police Station to report an incident that had occurred near his residence at around 11.45 p.m. When police personnel arrived, Sukumaran—the first defendant—caught hold of certain individuals near the road. The plaintiff identified himself as a lawyer who lived nearby and explained that he was the one who had made the call and that the men being detained were innocent.

Instead of heeding that explanation, Sukumaran allegedly assaulted the plaintiff, causing him injury. The plaintiff was subsequently taken to the General Hospital, Ernakulam. He alleged that the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadavanthara Police Station, falsified the registration of a case against him under Section 160 of the IPC (the equivalent provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita being Section 194). The plaintiff also alleged that the first defendant and the Sub Inspector falsified medical records at the General Hospital to show that a doctor had examined him on 4 April 2010 and found traces of alcohol. Immediately on release, the plaintiff was admitted to Medical Trust Hospital and treated as an inpatient; treatment certificates were produced in evidence.

Two suits were filed and tried together before the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. OS No. 728 of 2010 and OS No. 670 of 2012 both arose from the same transaction. The plaintiff produced 34 documents (Exts. A1 to A34) and examined five witnesses (PW1 to PW5). The first defendant chose not to lead any oral or documentary evidence whatsoever.

Trial Court and First Appellate Court Findings

The trial court, by its judgment dated 28 March 2018, concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed and found the first defendant liable. The court also declined to fasten vicarious liability on the State of Kerala, confining the payment obligation to defendants 1 to 3. The absence of any defence evidence was a factor the trial court explicitly noted.

Sukumaran, as the first defendant, appealed to the Additional District Court – VIII, Ernakulam. Before the first appellate court, extensive arguments were advanced challenging the sustainability of the trial court's findings. Counsel for the officer argued that since a medical examination had allegedly been conducted at the General Hospital, the claim of severe injury was improbable. The first appellate court rejected that argument: if a medical examination had indeed been conducted, nothing prevented Sukumaran from producing the doctor's certificate from the General Hospital. He did not.

The first appellate court also observed that the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff were not cross-examined on behalf of the first defendant, which permitted an adverse inference. The appellate court additionally recorded that the plea in the written statement was inconsistent with what was argued during the appeal. In the written statement, the officer had pleaded that the police party came to the scene in a jeep under the Sub Inspector's leadership and that the plaintiff and others were taken to the police station by them. But Ext. A33 showed that the officer himself admitted no other police personnel from the station came to the place of incident. The first appellate court found this inconsistency fatal.

By its judgment dated 30 March 2023, the first appellate court disposed of the two appeals differently. One appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's judgment. The other was allowed in part, modifying the compensation from Rs 1,50,000 to Rs 1,26,554, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation, with costs throughout.

Submissions Before the High Court

Before Justice Easwaran S., Sri P. T. Sheejish, appearing for Sukumaran, reiterated that a claim for compensation on account of a noxious act must be proved beyond any probable doubt and that no evidence on record established that his client had caused injury. Counsel contended that on the date of the incident, the officer had reached the spot on his scooter on instructions from the station, not in the police jeep. If the plaintiff's version of being taken in a jeep and manhandled were true, he should have been able to prove that the officer arrived in the police jeep. Counsel also questioned the quantification of damages, arguing that the medical records and the testimony of PW3, the doctor who examined the plaintiff, were not conclusive as to the extent of injuries on the date alleged.

Smt. A. T. Renju, appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff, met those arguments by pointing to the unimpeachable evidence of PW3 (the doctor) and PW4 (the Sub Inspector). She noted that PW4, the Sub Inspector, had deposed that the first defendant was standing outside the court premises watching the proceedings without even attempting to participate in them. The conscious absence of the first defendant while the plaintiff examined his witnesses, she argued, was itself telling. With uncontroverted evidence and no contra evidence, the findings of both courts below could not be disturbed.

The High Court's Reasoning

Justice Easwaran S. framed the central question precisely: notwithstanding the appellant's complete failure to adduce any oral or documentary evidence, should the High Court interfere with the concurrent findings of the two courts below?

The judge held that it was beyond doubt that the plaintiff was taken into custody on the date of the incident and that what followed was “a brutal attack on the plaintiff” at the instance of the first defendant. The court also noted that the first defendant had been suspended from service. Although it was contended that the officer was later exonerated in a departmental enquiry conducted by the State, nothing was produced to prove that exoneration.

On the standard of proof, the High Court held that in a claim for damages on account of a noxious act, the strict rules of evidence cannot be insisted upon. The plaintiff is expected to prove the alleged incident and he had done so through documentary and oral evidence. The burden then shifted, at least in practical terms, to the officer to explain or counter, which he entirely failed to do. The failure to produce the medical certificate from the General Hospital, Ernakulam—which the officer himself had relied on as a defence—was held to be fatal to his case.

The High Court also accepted the first appellate court's finding on the inconsistent written statement plea. The written statement claimed the Sub Inspector led the police party in a jeep and took the plaintiff to the station. Ext. A33 contradicted that version directly. The plaintiff had also been acquitted in the criminal case under Section 160 of the IPC that had been registered against him, which further undermined the defence narrative.

Justice Easwaran S. relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Another [1999 (1) KLT OnLine 928 (SC)], which holds that courts are entitled to draw an adverse inference against a defendant who fails to adduce evidence. Applying that principle, the court found the appeals wholly without merit.

Outcome

Both RSA No. 254 of 2026 and RSA No. 256 of 2026 were dismissed on 29 June 2026. The judgments and decrees of the Additional District Court – VIII, Ernakulam, dated 30 March 2023, were upheld. The first respondent-plaintiff, Vimal K. Charles, was held entitled to compensation of Rs 1,26,554 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation, along with costs. The High Court additionally quantified the cost of the second appeals at Rs 15,000, payable by the appellant to the first respondent. The litigation, which the court observed the officer had been successfully dragging and evading for 16 years since 2010, concluded at this stage.