Encounter Killings And Fake Encounters
What are Encounter Killings and Fake Encounters?
Encounter Killings: These are incidents where the police or law enforcement agencies kill alleged criminals in a confrontation or "encounter" during the course of their duty. Such killings often arise when police claim self-defense or the defense of others in the course of apprehending dangerous criminals.
Fake Encounters: These are staged killings by police or security forces where the person killed is allegedly killed unlawfully and extrajudicially. The police often claim that the person was killed in an encounter (self-defense or during an attempt to flee), but later investigations reveal that the person was killed in custody or otherwise, without any genuine encounter.
Why are Fake Encounters Controversial?
Fake encounters violate fundamental human rights, including the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. They bypass the legal process and often target marginalized communities. Courts have intervened in several cases to curb this misuse of power.
Important Case Laws on Encounter Killings and Fake Encounters
1. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. State of Maharashtra (1997)
Summary: This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to investigate encounter killings.
Key Points:
The Court held that encounters must be investigated by an independent agency, not the police involved.
It called for a judicial inquiry and/or magisterial inquiry into every encounter killing.
Police officials must file a detailed report after every encounter.
Significance: It established the principle that encounter killings cannot be accepted at face value; they require strict scrutiny.
2. Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980)
Summary: Though primarily a death penalty case, it stressed the importance of lawful procedure in cases involving life and death.
Key Points:
The Court observed that the State cannot take the law into its own hands.
Even in cases of crime control, the fundamental right to life must be respected.
Significance: Reinforced that the police cannot act outside the law, indirectly discouraging fake encounters.
3. Jaisingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1984)
Summary: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused in a police encounter case, observing that police cannot take the law into their own hands.
Key Points:
Court emphasized that use of force by police must be reasonable and lawful.
No extrajudicial killings are permissible.
Significance: Set a precedent that encounter killings will not be justified merely by police claims.
4. Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) vs. Union of India (2014)
Summary: The Supreme Court acknowledged the growing trend of fake encounters and expressed concern.
Key Points:
Court instructed State governments to create guidelines for conducting inquiry into encounters.
Emphasized the need for post-mortem and forensic reports.
Directed states to register FIRs against police personnel involved in fake encounters.
Significance: It reaffirmed state responsibility to prevent and punish fake encounters.
5. D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997)
Summary: Although not an encounter case per se, this judgment gave important guidelines to prevent custodial torture and death.
Key Points:
Guidelines to be followed by police to protect rights of arrested persons.
Requirement of arrest memo, medical examination, and notifying relatives.
Significance: These protections reduce the chances of fake encounters happening in custody.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Court | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|
| PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra | 1997 | Supreme Court | Independent inquiry required for encounter killings. |
| Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab | 1980 | Supreme Court | Lawful procedure must be respected; no extrajudicial killings. |
| Jaisingh vs. State of M.P. | 1984 | Supreme Court | Use of force must be reasonable; no impunity for fake encounters. |
| EEVFAM vs. Union of India | 2014 | Supreme Court | Guidelines to prevent and investigate fake encounters. |
| D.K. Basu vs. State of W.B. | 1997 | Supreme Court | Protection against custodial torture; safeguards for arrests. |
Additional Insights
The courts insist on transparency in encounter cases.
Magisterial inquiry and judicial oversight are mandatory.
Police officers involved in fake encounters have been prosecuted.
Human rights bodies have demanded accountability and reforms.
Despite laws, fake encounters continue to occur, raising concerns over police reforms and human rights in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments