2024-09-27 23:47:25
New Delhi: In the Badlapur encounter case, Bombay High Court has raised the question that how did the accused get shot in the head? That too when the police are given training as to where to shoot? On the death of accused Akshay Shinde in an encounter, the High Court has also said that at first sight it does not appear to be an encounter? Its definition varies. There has been a flood of encounters in the country these days, due to which the court has become strict. Do you know what an encounter means and also understand what is the status of an encounter in the eyes of the law? Does a common man also have the right to kill someone in self-defense? Or only the police have this right. First let us know what the court has said?
How could the policemen not control a weak man?
The Bombay High Court said that there were four policemen behind the accused. Then how is it possible that they are not able to control a weak man. That too in the rear part of the car. There were two policemen in front of the accused and two policemen beside him.
Why was the first encounter of a ‘hero’ tied to a tree, under whose rule most fake encounters took place in UP?
Why were the police pistols unlocked, a big question
The High Court said that prima facie there appears to be foul play in the encounter. Bombay High Court asked the police whether they shoot directly in the head? The High Court ordered to examine the fingers of the accused on the pistol. The court said that we cannot call it an encounter, its definition is different. The biggest thing is why was the police gun unlocked? When the accused tried to run away, why was he shot in the head? Why was he not shot in the arm or leg?
Prima facie, there is a mistake, this is not an encounter… Bombay High Court raised many questions in the case of Badlapur accused Akshay Shinde.
Encounter is not legal in the eyes of law or constitution
Advocate Anil Kumar Singh Srinet in the Supreme Court says that the word encounter also means conflict, encounter, contest, confrontation, fight, meeting, face-to-face, accidental meeting and accidental meeting. Generally the word encounter means killing of a terrorist or criminal in the action of police or armed forces. Generally, the term encounter is used in South Asia. This word has been in use in India and Pakistan since the 20th century, when there was British rule. This is not valid in the eyes of law.
Two types of encounters, one is shot in the lower part
Anil Singh Shrinet says that in the event of an encounter, the police first warns the criminal. Fires in the air. If he does not stop, he is shot in the legs to prevent him from running away. Even then, if the situation does not come under control, the police fire at other parts of the body. Many times when the police goes to arrest a criminal, he opens fire to escape. In such a situation, even in retaliation, the police shoots the criminal. But, in this second type of encounter also, people are shot in the lower part of the body, such as in the leg.
The term encounter police is not valid in the constitution.
According to Anil Singh, the word ‘encounter’ is not mentioned anywhere under the Indian Constitution. In police language, it is used when terrorists and criminals die in a clash between security forces and terrorists or police and criminals. There is no provision anywhere in Indian law to legalize an encounter. However, there are some rules and regulations which give the police the power to attack criminals and the death of criminals can be justified. This word came during the British rule before independence. At that time the British government used it against the rebels. This word was widely discussed even during the spread of terrorism in Punjab.
There was a provision for retaliatory attack in section 46 of CRPC.
According to Advocate Anil Singh Srinet, generally in almost all types of encounters the police mentions the action taken in self-defence. Section 46 of the Criminal Code i.e. CRPC says that if a criminal tries to avoid being arrested or tries to escape from the police or attacks the police, then in such a situation the police will retaliate against that criminal. Can.
There was discussion regarding private defense in KM Nanavati case.
Advocate Anil Kumar Singh says that a case of Navy Commander KM Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra in 1959 was going on in the court. In this case, Naval Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was tried for the murder of his wife’s lover Prem Ahuja. Commander Nanavati, accused under Section 302, was initially found not guilty by the jury. However, the Bombay High Court quashed the verdict and the case was retrial as a bench trial. At that time the issue of private defense was much discussed. Akshay Kumar’s film Rustom has been made on this subject.
Police are taught to shoot in the leg, but there is a possibility of mistake
Advocate Anil Kumar Singh says that even in the police academy or other training, the police are taught that during an encounter, the criminal should be shot in the leg. However, many times the criminal dies due to police bullets. The police then defend themselves by saying that the bullet fired to stop the criminal from escaping misfired and the criminal was hit in the chest or head, resulting in his death. In such cases, there is a possibility of mistake, which the police takes advantage of.
Why is the encounter called extra judicial killing?
Anil Singh says that the law does not give the police the right to punish any criminal. The courts decide on punishment. This is the reason why the killings during encounters are also called extra-judicial killings. The court directs that under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, it is necessary to follow all these rules in any kind of encounter. Article 141 gives the Supreme Court of India the power to make any rule or law.
Justice Venkatachaliah had said that police do not have this right
In March 1997, the then Human Rights Commission Chairman Justice MN Venkatachaliah had written a letter to all the Chief Ministers. In it he had written – The Commission is continuously receiving complaints from many places and from NGOs that fake encounters of the police are continuously increasing. In our law, the police do not have the right to kill a person and unless it is proved that they have killed someone under the law, it will be considered murder.
Supreme Court had ordered investigation after the encounter
In 2015, the Supreme Court had issued guidelines regarding police encounters and made it necessary to investigate every encounter. The investigation should be done by an independent agency. According to the Supreme Court guidelines, investigation by a magistrate in every encounter should be mandatory under Section 176 of CrPC. Appropriate action should be taken against the policemen found guilty in inappropriate encounters by suspending them. If action is not taken against the culprits, the victim can complain to the Sessions Judge.
The right to private defense was given under section 96-106 of IPC.
Advocate Anil Kumar Singh Srinet in the Supreme Court says that private defense is mentioned in Sections 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It has been said that in some special circumstances the encounter cannot be kept in the category of crime. This law applies to every citizen of the country, be it police or common man. If someone’s life is lost in self-defense, it will not fall in the category of crime. Provided that it is proved that there was no motive of any kind in the murder. Police also have the right to injure a criminal who is running away or is firing.
NHRC has given these guidelines on encounter, who has to give information
According to the 1997 guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), police station in-charges of all states and union territories should properly register encounter deaths.
- Immediate steps should be taken to investigate the facts and circumstances of the death of the accused.
- Since the police itself is involved in the encounter, it should be investigated by an independent agency like the state CID.
- Such investigation should be completed within four months. Such cases should be heard expeditiously.
- If found guilty, compensation to the dependents of the deceased should be considered in such cases.
- In cognizable cases of culpable homicide, an FIR should be registered when a complaint is lodged against the police.
- A magisterial inquiry into all cases of deaths due to police action should be conducted within three months.
- The Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the district should inform NHRC about the encounter within 48 hours.
More than 1,000 fake encounters between 2002 and 2013, UP ahead
According to NHRC, 440 cases of fake encounters were reported in the country between 2002 and 2008. Maximum cases occurred in UP (231), Rajasthan (33), Maharashtra (31), Delhi (26), Andhra Pradesh (22) and Uttarakhand (19). At the same time, between October 2009 and February 2013, a maximum of 555 cases of fake or disputed encounters were reported. In this too, maximum number of such encounters took place in UP (138), Manipur (62), Assam (52), West Bengal (35) and Jharkhand (30). Between 2002 and 2013, there were SP and BSP governments in UP.
Highest number of encounters in Chhattisgarh in 7 years
From 2016 to 2022, most of the encounters took place in Naxal affected areas of Chhattisgarh. After this, 110 encounters were carried out in Uttar Pradesh, 79 in Assam and 52 in Jharkhand. Ladakh is the only one where no encounter took place in these years. Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, Kerala are such states where very small number of encounters took place.
What is ‘Operation Langra’ in UP, why doesn’t the police adopt it?
According to media reports, a large number of encounters were carried out in a non-governmental mission in UP, called Operation Langra. Out of 8,472 encounters, 3,300 criminals were injured. That means he was shot in his legs during the encounter. Anil Singh says that many times the police carry out encounters due to pressure from media or social media. The job of the police is to catch the criminal or the accused, it is not their job to punish him on the spot.
Former Punjab DIG sentenced in fake encounter case after 31 years
In June this year, the special CBI court in Mohali sentenced former Punjab DIG Dilbag Singh to 7 years in jail and retired DSP Gurbachan Singh to life imprisonment in the 1993 fake encounter case in Punjab. It took almost 31 years to give this decision.
Life imprisonment to Mumbai encounter specialist Pradeep Sharma
Former Mumbai police officer Pradeep Sharma was accused in the fake encounter case of Ramnarayan Gupta alias Lakhan Bhaiya, a close associate of gangster Chhota Rajan. In this case, Pradeep Sharma was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Bombay High Court in March this year. However, the Supreme Court has granted him bail in the case.