The Kerala High Court has upheld compensation awarded to an advocate who alleged that he was assaulted by a civil police officer while trying to assist during a roadside incident in Kochi. Refusing to interfere with the findings of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed two second appeals filed by the police officer, holding that he failed to produce any evidence to challenge the advocate's case.
Justice Easwaran S. delivered the judgment on June 29, 2026, bringing an end to litigation that began over an incident in April 2010.
Background of the Case
According to the records, the advocate informed the police about a late-night disturbance on April 30, 2010. He claimed that when police personnel reached the spot, he identified himself as a lawyer and explained that the persons detained were not involved in the incident. Despite this, he alleged that a civil police officer assaulted him, following which a criminal case was registered against him and medical records were allegedly manipulated. The advocate later underwent treatment at a private hospital and sought compensation through civil suits.
The trial court accepted the advocate's claim and awarded compensation. On appeal, the first appellate court reduced the compensation from ₹1.5 lakh to ₹1,26,554, while affirming the findings on liability.
Court's Observations
Before the High Court, the police officer argued that there was insufficient evidence linking him to the alleged assault and questioned both the medical evidence and the amount of compensation.
However, Justice Easwaran S. noted that the officer had neither produced oral evidence nor placed relevant documents before the courts despite having the opportunity to do so.
The bench observed,
"The failure of the appellant to adduce oral and documentary evidence is detrimental to the cause projected by him."
The Court also found significance in the inconsistent stands taken by the officer during the proceedings. It agreed with the appellate court that contradictions in his pleadings weakened his defence and justified drawing an adverse inference. The judgment further relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Another, which permits courts to draw an adverse inference when a party fails to enter evidence.
Decision
Holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, the Kerala High Court dismissed both Regular Second Appeals.
The Court affirmed the compensation awarded by the first appellate court and directed that the advocate would also receive ₹15,000 as costs for the second appeals.
Case Details
Case Title: Sukumaran P. N. v. Vimal K. Charles & State of Kerala
Case Number: RSA Nos. 254 & 256 of 2026
Judge: Justice Easwaran S.
Decision Date: 29 June 2026
