In a recent case, the Bombay High Court has called for registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against five cops who have been found responsible for the encounter killing of the accused in the Badlapur sexual assault case.
Akshay Shinde was an attendant at a school in Badlapur and was arrested in August, 2024 for allegedly sexually assaulting two minor girls in the school toilet. On the 23rd of September, 2024, Shinde was killed while he was being transported from Taloja jail for questioning in another case of sexual assault that had been filed against him by his wife.
The police alleged that Shinde snatched a gun from one of the police personnel present in the van transporting him and opened fire, and he was killed in retaliatory firing that was done as a means of self-defence. He was killed by a Senior Police Inspector while one Additional Police Inspector, two constables and one police driver were present in the van.
Encounter killings are regarded as a legitimate way of law and order enforcement by different sections of society, but the widespread support does not make the action right. Encounter killings stand against the constitutional machinery of India where a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, the constitutional guarantee of ensuring that due process of law is followed, and the principle of proportionality of the punishment. Such arbitrary actions are unconstitutional, illegal and unacceptable.
As per the data collected by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), between the years 2016 to 2022, there have been 813 cases of encounter killings that is an average of 1 killing every three days. This data is alarming and raises concerns regarding the arbitrary and illegal actions of the police.
Here is a quick overview of the proceedings in the case –
September 25, 2024 – After a criminal writ petition filed by Anna Shinde, the father of accused Akshay Shinde, the Bombay High Court began hearing the case on the 25th of September, 2024. On 25th September, the court orally stated that it was hard to believe that the accused, who wasn’t a “strong man,” couldn’t be subdued by the police officers accompanying him and that the use of force was necessary. It has been argued by the Petitioner that when he met the accused, his son, on 23rd September, 2024, there was no indication that he was in a troubled state of mind.
Mr. Venegavkar, the learned Public Prosecutor (P.P.) in the case, mentioned that at the time of the transfer, the accused was sitting in the rear end of the vehicle along with an Assistant Police Inspector (API) and two constables, while the Police Inspector (PI) sat in front with the driver. The API later called the PI and informed him that the accused was getting unstable and was quarrelling, after which, the vehicle was stopped and the PI came and sat in the rear end of the vehicle. Shortly after that, the accused snatched the service gun from the API and fired two bullets towards the police officers which missed the officers, and immediately after that, the PI pulled out his service gun and shot at the accused which hit him on his head resulting in his death.
The Court noted that the Human Rights Commission and the Judicial Magistrate be informed of the custodial death as mandated by the law.
October 3, 2024 – On the next hearing of the case, that is on the 3rd of October, 2024, the Court noted that the post-mortem report has been forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) for conducting an inquiry under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into the custodial death of the accused Akshay Shinde, and all other documents required for the same would also be transferred at the earliest possible time. Further, the Court requested for the Magisterial Inquiry Report to be expedited.
November 18, 2024 – By an order dated 18th November, 2024, the High Court granted an extension till 2nd December, 2024 for the completion of the magisterial inquiry in the case, and noted that all the necessary documents for the inquiry had been transferred to the Magistrate.
December 2, 2024 – The date for submission of the Magistrate Inquiry Report was further extended to 20th January, 2025 by an order dated 2nd December, 2024 as certain necessary documents had not been submitted to the Magistrate.
January 20, 2025 – On 20th January, 2025, the High Court perused the report submitted by the Magistrate after his inquiry in the case. As per the report, the five police personnel have been held to be responsible for the custodial death of the accused.
Based on the inquiry, the division bench of the High Court, consisting of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale, has directed the State government to file an FIR and sought details regarding the agency that will probe this case. The Court directed the Government to provide the details of the agency that will investigate the case to the High Court within a period of two weeks.
The report submitted by the Magistrate has also noted that there were no fingerprints of the accused on the weapon used and no gunshot residue has been detected, therefore the use of force by the police personnel was not justified.
The report has supported the allegations of false encounter made by the father of the accused.
The Court held that apart from providing the State Human Rights Commission with a copy of the magisterial inquiry report as per protocol, a copy should also be provided to the State and the father of the accused who had filed a petition for an investigation into the death of the accused.
This case highlights the dire situation of law and order enforcement in India where it is a common practice for the police to take the law into their own hands without any fear of retribution. There is a rampant abuse of power and disregard for due process and the judicial machinery. Encounter killings are becoming a major reason for erosion of public trust in the judicial system of India. There is an urgent need for reforms in India’s law enforcement system and to increase accountability of the police, so as to act as a deterrent for the police from arbitrarily and wrongly using their power.
Related:
- Maharashtra: Two minor girls sexually assaulted, delay in FIR, failure of accountability, attempts to cover up crime
- Maharashtra: Swift action on protesters, delayed justice for sexual assault against minors, police priorities need to be questioned
- Bombay HC chastens Maharashtra Police for shoddy investigation in cases involving sexual assault against minors and women