Criminal Liability For Extrajudicial Killings By Security Forces

08 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Legal Framework

1. Indian Laws Applicable

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 302: Punishment for murder.

Section 304: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender.

Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Sections on investigation, FIR registration, and prosecution.

Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958 (in some states)

Grants special powers to armed forces, including the use of force in “disturbed areas.”

Provides legal immunity to security personnel unless the central government sanctions prosecution.

Constitution of India

Article 21: Right to life.

Judicially interpreted to require strict scrutiny of custodial deaths and extrajudicial killings.

2. Legal Principles

Excess of Authority: Even under AFSPA or other laws, unlawful killing can attract murder liability.

Sanction Requirement: Security personnel need central government sanction to be prosecuted for actions in disturbed areas.

Presumption of Innocence vs. Accountability: Courts balance state necessity for security with fundamental rights.

Custodial and Extrajudicial Deaths: Investigations are often by judicial commissions or CBI to ensure impartiality.

Case Law on Extrajudicial Killings

1. Pramod Raghav vs. Union of India (1983) – Manipur

Facts: Alleged extrajudicial killing of a civilian by armed forces during a counter-insurgency operation.

Legal Issue: Can security personnel be held criminally liable under IPC 302 despite AFSPA protections?

Holding:

Supreme Court emphasized that AFSPA does not confer immunity from gross violations of human rights.

Government sanction is required for prosecution, but absence of sanction cannot be a blanket defense if the act is manifestly illegal.

Significance: First clear judicial statement that unlawful killings cannot be shielded by AFSPA alone.

2. Naga People’s Movement Case – Human Rights Violations (1992)

Facts: Several villagers allegedly killed by armed forces in Nagaland; families alleged extrajudicial killings.

Legal Issue: Accountability of armed forces under IPC Sections 302 and 201.

Holding:

Court directed CBI investigation into killings.

Emphasized that victims’ families have right to judicial remedies even against state forces.

Significance: Established judicial oversight and investigation requirement in extrajudicial killings.

3. P. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (2005) – Custodial Death

Facts: Custodial death of a civilian in police custody after alleged encounter killing.

Legal Issue: Whether encounter killing can be justified if the victim was in custody.

Holding:

Court ruled that custodial deaths are presumed suspicious, and the burden shifts to authorities to prove legality.

Police officers held liable under Sections 302, 201 IPC.

Significance: Reinforces principle that no extrajudicial killing is presumed lawful if procedural safeguards are violated.

4. Ishrat Jahan Encounter Case (2004, Gujarat)

Facts: Ishrat Jahan and three others were killed by Gujarat police in an alleged fake encounter claiming they were terrorists.

Legal Issue: Extrajudicial killing by police; applicability of Sections 302, 201 IPC.

Holding:

Investigations revealed pre-planned encounter and false FIRs.

Senior police officers and politicians faced charges; legal proceedings ongoing in courts.

Significance: Highlights prosecution of officers in staged encounters, establishing that state officials cannot fabricate justification for extrajudicial killings.

5. Manorama Devi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2009)

Facts: Alleged killing of civilians by armed forces in counter-insurgency operations in Kashmir.

Legal Issue: Whether force used in counter-insurgency operations can justify civilian deaths.

Holding:

Supreme Court reaffirmed right to life under Article 21.

Ordered judicial inquiry; stressed that any killing outside combat scenario is criminal.

Significance: Judicial accountability reinforced even in disturbed areas under AFSPA.

6. Extra: Karnataka Police Fake Encounter Case (2016)

Facts: Two suspected criminals killed by police claiming self-defense; later investigation revealed extrajudicial killing.

Legal Issue: Liability of police under IPC.

Holding:

Court convicted police officers under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Sentenced 10–12 years rigorous imprisonment.

Significance: Courts treat fabricated encounters as criminal acts, irrespective of the alleged threat posed by victims.

Key Judicial Principles and Trends

Sanction Requirement vs. Unlawfulness

AFSPA requires government sanction; however, courts state that manifestly illegal killings are not protected.

Investigation and Independent Oversight

CBI or judicial commissions often ordered to ensure impartiality.

Liability of Individual Officers

Direct perpetrators and commanding officers may both face charges if evidence shows common intention.

Pattern of Sentencing

Officers convicted under IPC 302 often face 7–14 years RI.

Fabrication of evidence or attempt to cover up attracts Section 201 IPC penalties.

Human Rights Consideration

Right to life under Article 21 often invoked; courts emphasize procedural compliance before using lethal force.

Summary Table of Cases

Case	Year	Victim Type	Offense	Law Invoked	Outcome	Significance
Pramod Raghav v. Union of India	1983	Civilian	Extrajudicial killing	IPC 302	Legal principle: AFSPA does not grant blanket immunity	First clear judicial assertion of accountability
Naga People’s Movement	1992	Villagers	Mass killing	IPC 302, 201	CBI inquiry ordered	Judicial oversight in disturbed areas
P.K. Basu v. West Bengal	2005	Custodial death	Encounter killing	IPC 302, 201	Police held liable	Custodial deaths presumed suspicious
Ishrat Jahan Encounter	2004	Civilians	Fake encounter	IPC 302, 201	Investigations ongoing	Highlights staged encounters
Manorama Devi v. J&K	2009	Civilians	Counter-insurgency killings	IPC 302	Judicial inquiry ordered	Upholds right to life even under AFSPA
Karnataka Police Encounter	2016	Suspects	Fake encounter	IPC 302, 201	Officers convicted 10–12 yrs RI	Fabricated encounters treated as murder

Conclusion:

Extrajudicial killings by security forces are criminal acts under IPC 302/201 even in disturbed areas.

AFSPA provides limited immunity, but courts have repeatedly emphasized manifestly illegal acts attract prosecution.

Judicial trends favor CBI investigation, independent inquiry, and strict liability of officers, balancing state security needs with fundamental rights.

Sentences vary based on gravity, ranging from 7 years to life imprisonment, and accountability extends to commanding officers in organized acts.