Extra-judicial killings have become a common phenomenon in the country’s criminal justice system. The need for an independent probe becomes even more imperative when the chief minister seeks ex post facto endorsement of killings from a frenzied crowd as if it were a kangaroo court. When the government has no explanation for what transpired, fanning public anxiety is not going to help. What the chief minister is doing is like selling the constitutional soul to buy momentary respite. Guilt or innocence can neither be decided by a kangaroo court nor by T.V. studios or social media trials. It is the first duty of the state to uphold the rule of law and punish the guilty. Instead of discharging its primary obligation, the chief minister seems to be destroying the Constitutional Structure on which the republic is founded.
Encounter philosophy is a criminal philosophy and all policemen must know that, out of the total of 513 deaths of human species in police custody between 2011-15, not one policeman has been convicted.
It does not matter whether a victim was a common person, militant or a terrorist. Nor does it matter whether the aggressor was a common person or the State. The law is equally applicable to both. This is the requirement of a democracy.
“Killings in police encounters require independent investigation,” the SC held in the PUCL case, which related to 99 encounters by Mumbai police between 1995 and 1997.
The audio clip for nine minutes suggests that the policemen had orders to kill them from before and that there was neither any intention nor any effort to arrest them. The walkie-talkie recording also seem to support the footage and strengthens the suspicion that the escapees were unarmed and so there is no question of their having opened fire on the policemen.
The new audio leaks carry a statement “Finish Them All”; if this were true, it would make a case of brutal murder. Moreover, the first eyewitness Naresh Pal has made a statement the he did not see any firearms with the escapees. Arif Mohammed, State President of All India Milli Council, claims that there is evidence in the form of visuals of the video clips submitted to the MP high court, that the prisoners who were killed wanted to surrender. The PIL was filed by Masood & Ors. in the MP high court. It is only after the high court issued notice to the state government that a judicial enquiry was ordered by the latter. The CM and the state government realised that they could not stem the tide of uncomfortable revelations every hour. Once the HC also asked for a detailed report from the Anti-Terror Squad about the encounter, the government realised that it was safer to constitute a judicial inquiry.
The jail authorities complain that the security personnel to prisoner ratio was only 1:10 whereas the recommended ratio in the jail manual is 1:6, but what is shocking proof of bad governance is that more than 80 jail officials were posted at the residence of ministers, ex-ministers, senior police officers and former senior police officers, reducing the security personnel to prisoner ratio to dangerously low levels. The number of security personnel posted in prison was so low that the personnel were scared of going into the prison areas alone.
Committee after committee is being constituted with suggestions of electrified fences, but who is going to ensure that they will remain operational? In the case of instant jailbreak, the security towers around the high prison wall maintain a deafening silence. In fact, it is still a mystery as to how, without the help of some of the prison staff, the prisoners could have scaled a 35-foot-high wall, with the help of bed sheets and towels.
Vyapam and the jailbreak encounter have revealed the rot in MP administration. We hope that the Commission of Inquiry will not become a convenient excuse for inaction against those who are prima facie involved in the murder. Quite independent of the Commission of Inquiry, the HC needs to crack the whip and direct the government to register murder cases against those who fired at and killed persons in cold blood. Immediate registration of FIRs followed by the normal process of investigation and arrest of the suspects alone can infuse confidence in citizens that the rule of law governs them.
Read: Cops live on the edge all the time
The significance of independent probes is now being felt once again in the case of a suspicious escape from Bhopal Prison and mindless gunning down of escapees. Thus, legitimate tools have to be crafted for dealing with the menace of terror. Fake encounters and ‘encounter specialists’ is not one of them. Let the police stop killing people out of frustration and let the rule of law be enforced in letter and spirit.
Friends carry photographs of an unidentified Maoist rebel killed in a police encounter during the funeral procession of Maoist leader Prabhakar at Yapral village, Hyderabad on Oct. 27.
Supreme Court guidelines
Whenever police receive any intelligence regarding criminal activities pertaining to the commission of grave criminal offence, it shall be reduced into writing (case diary) or in some electronic form.
If an encounter takes place and a firearm is used by the police and a death occurs, then an FIR needs to be registered and same shall be forwarded to court.
A magisterial inquiry must be invariably held in all cases of death.
An independent investigation into the encounter shall be conducted by the CID or police team of another police station under the supervision of a senior officer.
The National or State Human Rights Commission should be informed of the incident without any delay if there is serious doubt about independent and impartial investigation.
The injured criminal/victim should be provided medical aid and his/her statement recorded by the magistrate or medical officer with certificate of fitness.
Ensure no delay in sending FIR, diary entries, panchnamas, sketch, among others, to the court concerned.
After full investigation into the incident, the report should be sent to the competent court. Expeditious and proper trial must be ensured.
In the event of death, the next of kin of the alleged criminal/victim must be informed.
Six monthly statements of all cases where deaths have occurred in police firing must be sent to the National Human Rights Commission by DGPs in set date and format.
Disciplinary action should be initiated against the police officers found guilty of wrongful encounter and they should be placed under suspension.
Dependents of the victim who died in the police encounter should be given compensation under the compensation scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure
The police officers concerned must surrender their weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis immediately.
An intimation about the incident must also be sent to the police officer’s family and services of a lawyer/counselling must be offered.
No out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards be bestowed upon the officers concerned till the probe is on.
Past Encounters
Khwaja Yunus (2002):
Sayyed Khwaja Yunus, a software engineer working in a Dubai firm, was picked from Parbhani, Marathwada, in December 2002 in connection with a bomb blast in a BEST bus near Ghatkopar station. The police claimed he escaped from the police vehicle near Aurangabad in January 2003. However, co-accused Abdul Mateen and the prosecution claimed Yunus died in custody.
Ishrat Jehan (2004):
On June 15, 2004, the Ahmedabad Crime Branch killed four suspected terrorists on the outskirts of the Gujarat capital. They were believed to be linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba terror group. The deceased were identified as Zeeshan Johar, Amjad Ali Rana, Javed Shaikh and Ishrat Jehan.
Batla House Encounter (2008):
On Sept. 18, 2008, a Delhi Police team headed by Mohan Chand Sharma raided Batla House where a firefight ensued between the police and terrorists. Two terrorists were killed and two others were arrested while one managed to escaped from the scene. Inspector Sharma and two others were injured. Sharma died on his way to the hospital.
