Fake Encounter Killings And Nhrc Role
🔍 1. What Are Fake Encounter Killings?
Fake encounter killings refer to extrajudicial executions by police or security forces where a suspect or accused is killed, and the killing is falsely portrayed as an act of self-defense during a legitimate encounter.
⚠️ Characteristics:
Victims are often alleged criminals, gangsters, or militants.
Law enforcement claims they fired in retaliation or self-defense.
In reality, many are cold-blooded murders staged as encounters.
Often used to bypass legal processes and achieve instant justice.
🧭 2. Legal and Constitutional Framework
| Legal Provision | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Article 21 (Right to Life) | Protects against arbitrary deprivation of life |
| Article 22 | Guarantees protection from illegal arrest and detention |
| CrPC Sections 46, 96–106 | Governs use of force by police |
| NHRC Guidelines (1997, revised 2010) | Prescribes procedures for investigating encounter deaths |
| SC Guidelines in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra | Mandates judicial inquiry, FIR, independent investigation |
🛡️ 3. NHRC's Role in Fake Encounter Cases
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has played a crucial role in:
Monitoring police encounters,
Laying down procedural guidelines,
Recommending compensation,
Ordering independent investigations,
Holding officers accountable for human rights violations.
⚖️ 4. Landmark Case Laws on Fake Encounter Killings
🔹 Case 1: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014)
Facts:
PUCL challenged several encounter deaths in Maharashtra, alleging them to be fake.
Held:
Supreme Court laid down 16-point guidelines for encounter investigations, including:
Mandatory FIR against police officers,
Independent investigation by CID or another police station,
Magisterial inquiry,
Informing NHRC,
Judicial oversight.
Significance:
This case serves as the benchmark for handling encounter killings in India.
🔹 Case 2: Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand (2012)
Facts:
Police officers shot and killed a man, later claiming self-defense.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled that fake encounters are nothing but state-sponsored terrorism and are unconstitutional. Officers cannot take law into their own hands.
Significance:
Made it clear that no immunity exists for unlawful killings, and such acts must be tried as murder.
🔹 Case 3: Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011)
Facts:
Senior police officers were accused of planning and executing a fake encounter for a private party.
Held:
Supreme Court condemned the officers’ conduct, stating that fake encounters are equivalent to cold-blooded murder.
Significance:
Held that policemen should face death penalty if proven guilty of such killings.
🔹 Case 4: Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v. Union of India (2016)
Facts:
Over 1,500 alleged fake encounter killings were reported in Manipur over 20 years.
Held:
Supreme Court ordered investigation into each case, stating that armed forces cannot use excessive force under AFSPA without accountability.
Significance:
Strong stand against impunity under AFSPA, reaffirmed Article 21 rights even in disturbed areas.
🔹 Case 5: Raja Ram v. State of Haryana (2010)
Facts:
Victim was killed in an alleged encounter. Evidence showed he was unarmed and shot in custody.
Held:
Court rejected police version and convicted officers under Sections 302 and 120B IPC (murder and conspiracy).
Significance:
Shows courts will convict police officers in proven fake encounter cases.
🔹 Case 6: Ishrat Jahan Encounter Case (2004; later developments till 2021)
Facts:
19-year-old Ishrat Jahan and three others were killed by Gujarat police in an alleged fake encounter.
Findings:
Multiple inquiries, including by the CBI and SIT, concluded that the encounter was staged.
Legal Outcome:
While trial is still ongoing, this case received widespread attention as a politically sensitive misuse of police power.
Significance:
Exposed institutional support for fake encounters, led to CBI investigation.
🧾 5. NHRC Guidelines on Encounter Deaths (Key Points)
As revised by NHRC and endorsed by SC in PUCL case:
Immediate Registration of FIR
Independent Investigation
Post-mortem by Two Doctors
Inform NHRC within 48 Hours
Submission of Report within 3 Months
Judicial Magistrate Inquiry (mandatory)
Preservation of Scene of Crime
Statements of Witnesses under 164 CrPC
Compensation to Victims’ Families (if abuse is proved)
📊 6. Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| PUCL v. State of Maharashtra | 2014 | Guidelines on fake encounters | 16-point mandatory procedure |
| Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand | 2012 | State-sponsored fake killing | Ruled as unconstitutional |
| Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Gupta | 2011 | Conspiracy by police | Fake encounter = murder |
| EEVFAM v. Union of India | 2016 | Mass fake encounters in Manipur | SC ordered detailed probe |
| Raja Ram v. State of Haryana | 2010 | Custodial killing shown as encounter | Police convicted |
| Ishrat Jahan Case | 2004–2021 | Staged encounter | Ongoing trial, CBI confirmed fake |
🚨 7. Challenges in Prosecuting Fake Encounters
Lack of independent witnesses
Cover-ups by local police
Pressure on victims’ families
Political and administrative shielding
Delays in investigation and prosecution
✅ 8. Conclusion
Fake encounter killings represent a serious violation of the rule of law and constitutional rights. The judiciary and NHRC have played pivotal roles in:
Condemning such killings
Formulating clear procedures
Ensuring accountability of law enforcement
However, real change requires independent oversight, fast-track trials, and systemic police reforms to eliminate the culture of impunity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments