|
The Allahabad High Court has taken a strict view of the growing practice of the Uttar Pradesh Police shooting accused persons in the legs and later describing the incident as an "encounter" [Raju alias Rajkumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh].
Through an order passed on January 28, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) of the state to appear before the Court via video conferencing on Friday, January 30. The DGP and the Home Secretary have been asked to inform the Court whether any oral or written instructions were issued to police officers to shoot accused persons in the legs or otherwise, while claiming such incidents to be police encounters.In its January 28 order, the Court observed that the practice of police encounters, particularly shooting accused persons in the legs, has become a routine occurrence. The Bench remarked that this is apparently done either to please senior officers or to teach the accused a so-called lesson as a form of punishment. "Such conduct is completely unacceptable, as the power to punish rests only with the courts, not with the police. India is a democratic state governed by the rule of law, therefore the functions of the executive, legislature, and judiciary are clearly defined, and any encroachment by the police into the judicial domain is impermissible," the Court further said. The Court also noted that some police officers may be misusing their authority to attract the attention of higher officials or to create public sympathy by portraying incidents as police encounters. The judge stated, "Cases often come before this Court where, even in minor offences such as theft, the police resort to indiscriminate firing by giving the incident the colour of a police encounter." These observations were made while hearing bail applications of three accused persons who were injured in different police encounters. The Court noted that no police officer had suffered any injury, which further raises questions about the necessity and proportionality of the use of firearms in the alleged encounters. In one of the bail applications, the Court had earlier directed the State to clarify whether an FIR had been registered in relation to the police encounter and whether the injured person''s statement had been recorded before a magistrate or a medical officer. In response, the State stated that an FIR had been registered in the matter, but the injured person''s statement was neither recorded before a magistrate nor by a medical officer. It was also informed that earlier, a sub-inspector had been appointed as the investigating officer, but the responsibility has now been assigned to an inspector. Taking note of the submissions, the Court said that the Supreme Court''s guidelines on police encounters were not followed in this case. The Bench observed, "It is clear that in the present case, although the applicant was seriously injured in a police encounter, the directions issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of People''s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and others (supra), as reaffirmed in Andhra Pradesh Police Officers Association vs Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC) (2022) 16 SCC 514, have not been complied with. The police have neither recorded the injured person''s statement before a medical officer or a magistrate, nor has the encounter been investigated by an officer senior in rank to the head of the police team involved in the encounter." Therefore, the Court directed the DGP and the Home Secretary to clarify whether any instructions have been issued to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court''s directions in the PUCL case regarding registration of FIRs, recording of statements of injured persons, and conducting investigations by officers senior to the head of the police team in cases of death or grievous injury during police encounters. (ANI)
|
