V.O.C MEMORIAL HOUSE

t.c.rp  ,y;yk;

fg;gNyhl;ba jkpod;> nrf;fpOj;j nrk;ky;> t.c.rpjk;guk; gps;is mth;fspd; gpwe;j tPl;ilAk;> mth; rk;ge;jgl;l mhpa Gifg; glq;fs;....

 

    

  ,J Jhj;Jf;Fb khtl;lk; Xl;lg;gplhuk;>mtuJ epidT ,y;yk; muR Eyfkhf nray;gLfpwJ.           

 

t.c.rp mtuJ ,sik gUtj;jpy;....

t.c.rp mtuJ Kjy; kidtp jpUkjp. ts;spak;khSld;.....

t.c.rp mth;fs; rpiw nry;tjw;f;F Kd;G mth; kidtpAld;...

 

Nfhit rpiwapy; t.c.rp mth;fs; ,Oj;j nrf;F...

       

t.c.rp apd; ez;gh;fs;..>Gul;rp ftpQh;.ghujpahH kw;Wk; jpahfp.Rg;gpukzpa rpth mth;fs;....

t.c.rp mth;fspd; ,Wjp CHtyj;jpd; NghJ vLj;j glk;...

POLICE ENCOUNTER

POLICE ENCOUNTER

INTRODUCTION

     One of the meanings of ‘police encounter’, according to the oxford English dictionary, is “a confrontation or unpleasant struggle.”

     Police encounter is another one is called “extra judicial killing”. This carried out of a govt own territory and are carried out by regular military or police force, by special units created to function without normal supervision ,or by civilion agents working with its complicity, such forces, units often called death squads. the victim may be political opponents, human rights defenders, or criminal suspects.

     Encounter killings is a euphemism used in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to describe extrajudicial killings in which police are said to shoot down alleged gangsters and terrorists in gun battles. These killings are also called police encounters. Encounter killings were common in Mumbai, India, from the 1990s through the mid 2000s and some of the police officers involved came to be known as 'Encounter Specialists'. The Mumbai police resorted to encounter killings as they believed that these killings delivered speedy justice. Encounter killings severely crippled the Underworld in Mumbai and busted the extortion racket which was rampant at that time. Human rights activists consider these encounter killings, together with torture by police in lock-ups and custodial deaths to be "gross human rights violations".

     Police encounter is the term used by the Indian Police Service or Indian military/paramilitary forces when explaining the death of an individual at their hands who was deemed by them to be a militant or "subject of interest". It refers to extra judicial killings or executions not authorized by a court or by the law. Such encounters also go by the name of "staged encounters", where weapons are planted on or near the dead body to provide a justification for killing the individual. Common reasons given for the discrepancy between records showing that the individual was in custody at the time of his encounter, is that he/she had escaped.

Every second police encounter in India is fake

     Since October 1993, 2560 cases of police encounters have been brought into the notice of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Of them, according to the NHRC, 1224 cases have been found fake encounters. It means that roughly every second police encounter is fake in the country. The information has been accessed by eminent RTI activist Afroz Alam Sahil after several attempts. Sahil recently came into limelight for securing the autopsy report of Batla House encounter victims.

     Another interesting point the data reveals is that of 1224 fake encounters, the NHRC ordered for compensation in only 16 cases. Sahil, a Jamia Millia Islamia student filed an application with the NHRC using RTI Act on 24/09/2008, a week after the Batla House encounter. He sought information on three counts: number of police encounter cases reached NHRC so far, number of fake encounters among them and details of these fake encounters. But it took him almost one year and a lot of blood burning to get the information though incomplete.

     He got incomplete reply on 20/10/2008. The one-paragraph answer to these questions said: “As per record available with the Commission, so far 2560 cases of police encounter/alleged fake encounter have come up before the NHRC. The Commission has so far granted compensation in sixteen cases of police encounter/alleged fake encounter.” The answer did not provide the number of all fake encounters.

     Unsatisfied Sahil appealed for full information on 29/10/2008. He got reply on 27/11/2008. “In addition to earlier reply provided to the applicant, it is submitted that out of 16 cases in which certain acts of omission/commission resulting in violation of human rights on the part of public servants were found, 8 have been closed and the remaining 8 are still under consideration before the commission.” Once again the Commission skipped the question about the number of total fake encounters. Rather the repeated information about compensation in fake encounters seemed to indicate there were only 16 fake encounters. But this was not true. The actual number of fake encounters was in hundreds.

     The petitioner filed a fresh application on 02/03/2009 and asked 7 questions including: Since October 1993, how many cases of fake encounters, communal riots/caste violence, death in police custody, exploitation of women and exploitation of Dalit have come before the commission. In how many of them public servants were found guilty. How many of them were disposed of or found wrong. And the case number of fake encounters in which NHRC has given compensation.

     The reply he got from NHRC in October 2009 after taking numerous rounds of the Commission office was revealing. Since October 1993 there were 1224 fake encounters in the country. See the table.

Fake encounters 1224

·      Communal riots/caste violence 432

·      Death in police custody 2320

·      Exploitation of women 4502

·      Exploitation of Dalit 17998

The NHRC said that out of the above, in 224 cases, the Commission found violation of human rights by public servants. The Commission had disposed of a total of 16784 such cases where no finding/positive recommendation in respect of proven violation of human rights was made.

     However, this reply contrasted its own reply dated 27/11/2008 as for compensation in fake encounters. While there were 1224 fake encounters the commission ordered compensation in only 7 cases. “In 7 cases of encounter, the Commission has awarded compensation,” says NHRC in the new reply while November 2008 reply said compensation was given in 16 cases.

List of seven victims whose family was given compensation:

S.N	File No.	Victim	Action Date
1	621/13/97-98	Smt Asha Arun Gawli	15/06/1998
2	2812/4/97-98	Shri Chhati Singh	01/082007
3	14657/24/97-98	Brij Mohan Parashar	31/05/2002
4	3731/4/2002-03	Amitesh Sharma	17/05/2007
5	1247/12/2002-03	Shri Yogesh	25/08/2008
6	3519/24/2003-04	Papli S/O Mangal	04/03/2008
7	179/1/2003-04	Mohammed Shafi	01/10/2008

     Mohammed Shafi was of Andhra Pradesh. The complaint in his case was filed by Lateef Mohd Khan of Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee of Hyderabad. The encounter had taken place in Zaheerabad on 22/05/2003. The victim family has been given a compensation of Rs 3 lakh. How Afroz Alam Sahil got all this information is a story in itself exposing the lethargic attitude of the Commission in giving out information, particularly this one related to fake encounters. Let’s see it in chronological order. (When he failed to get information in 2008 he filed fresh petition in 2009).

March 2, 2009: He filed fresh petition asking information on seven questions.

March 30, 2009: He was informed his petition sent to Law Division in NHRC

April 8, 2009: He got a letter asking him to deposit Rs 1480 as the information will be in 740 pages.

April 23, 2009: He deposited the amount with the Commission. He was given two-page information answering his seven Qs and asked to call after two days and get full report from office. He phoned but told report is not ready. He phoned several times and visited the office many times but in vain.

May 22, 2009: He was phoned to tell him deposit Rs 2216 more as the report will be in 1848 pages.

May 23, 2009: He was phoned to tell that the report will be in 1860 pages and he will need to deposit Rs 740 more.

May 23, 2009: He filed first appeal with NHRC detailing all this drama.

June 19, 2009: He got a letter that said he will get information in 1840 pages and his Rs 1480 will be returned.

July 8, 2009: He got a draft of Rs 1480 but no information.

(after that he called and visited the office but in vain, told report is being prepared)

August 13, 2009: He gave a written complaint to the NHRC.

August 31, 2009: He filed second appeal with CIC.

     One month later he was called from NHRC that the report is ready and he can collect it from office. When he went he was given 1111-page report in place of 1848 or 1860 pages. The CIC has not yet conducted hearing on his second appeal.

Extra judicial Killings Under the Spotlight

     The practice of extrajudicial killings has once again reared its ugly head in India due to two highly publicised cases that have focussed public attention on the issue. Both cases involved so-called ‘encounter’ killings by police. The euphemism ‘encounter killings’ has been used since the 1960s to describe extrajudicial killings because of the frequency with which officials claim that the deceased had been killed in an ‘encounter’ with police. While media reports of ‘encounter’ deaths often receive little public attention, the recent cases have attracted an unusual degree of public scrutiny. The high level of public interest creates an opportunity to refocus attention on the alarming frequency with which extrajudicial killings have occurred – and continue to occur – throughout the country.

     In the first case, police shot and killed two men at New Delhi’s Ansal Plaza shopping complex on 3 November 2002. The police claimed the two men were Pakistani terrorists and were killed in an ‘encounter’. However, media reports questioned the police version of events. A local doctor, Dr. Hare Krishna, claimed to have witnessed the event, and alleged that the encounter was faked. Dr. Krishna filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking an independent inquiry into the Ansal Plaza shoot-out. He also claimed to have been pressured to change his statement.

     More recently, Patna, the capital city of the state of Bihar, was the scene of mass protests against the killings of three youths in an allegedly fake encounter on 28 December 2002. The deceased’s families accused police of concocting the ‘encounter’ story and falsely claiming looted vehicles were recovered from the scene. A dawn-to-dusk general strike, or bandh, as it is known in India, was called in Patna in protest against the killings. In response to the protests, the State Government ordered a probe by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) into the killings. Six policemen were reportedly suspended in connection with the case.    

     A fresh incident of ‘encounter killing’ was reported as recently as 13 January 2003 in the western state of Gujarat. Police in the city of Ahmadabad shot dead 25-year-old Sadiq Jamal Mehtar, who, they alleged, was on a mission to kill Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Police claimed they fired at him “in self defence”. This was the second such incident following the events of early 2002. In October 2002, another ‘militant’, Samirkhan Pathan, who had allegedly planned to “kill Modi” had been killed in an ‘encounter.’

     International human rights law prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life under any circumstances. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) provides that “[e]very human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” Article 4 of the ICCPR states that this right cannot be waived “even in times of public emergency threatening the life of the nation.” Moreover, under Article 2(3)(a) and (b) of the ICCPR, State parties are obliged to ensure that remedies are available to the victims of human rights violations and that those remedies are effective. Extrajudicial killings clearly contravene the right to life.

     The Indian Government ratified the ICCPR in 1979. By ratifying an international treaty which enshrines the right to life, India is obliged not only to respect that right in principle, but also to take effective measures to ensure that extrajudicial killings do not occur in practice. Although the right to life is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the increasing incidence of extrajudicial killings in India demonstrates that the Government has failed to take effective measures to ensure that the right is respected in practice.

     Extrajudicial killings are not isolated occurrences in India; as former civil servant and social activist S.R. Sankaran puts it, they are part of a “deliberate and conscious state administrative practice” for which successive Indian governments must bear responsibility. Indeed, successive Indian governments have adopted a de facto policy sanctioning extrajudicial killings by members of the police forces, army and security personnel. A number of factors compel this conclusion.

     First, the Indian Government has failed to ensure the adequate investigation of all complaints and reports of extrajudicial killings. Proper investigation is, of course, a critical factor in the prevention of extrajudicial killings. Without adequate investigation of complaints of extrajudicial killings, there can be little hope of prosecuting and convicting the perpetrators. However, the Indian Government has not demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that all such complaints are adequately investigated. Importantly, there is no independent body in India that is empowered to investigate such complaints. Moreover, India’s national human rights body, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), has not proved to be an effective body in combating extrajudicial killings. The NHRC’s ineffectiveness is exacerbated by the Indian Government’s failure to give adequate consideration and attention to the NHRC’s recommendations in relation to human rights violations generally, including recommendations in relation to extrajudicial killings. For example, although the NHRC has issued guidelines to be followed by police in all cases of ‘encounter’ killings, it is clear that these are generally not followed in practice.

     Second, the Indian Government has failed to ensure the prosecution of those who commit extrajudicial executions. Indeed, the government’s failure in this regard extends beyond the mere failure to prosecute, as Indian law, through the doctrines of sovereign and official immunity, actually protects officials who commit human rights violations. Moreover, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the sanction of the Central or State Government is required to arrest or institute criminal prosecutions against public servants, including police officers and members of the civil or armed forces. The Indian Government has ignored repeated calls to amend the law to ensure that public officers who violate human rights are no longer protected from prosecution.

     Third, entrenched problems within India’s judicial system contribute to the climate of impunity that allows extrajudicial killings to occur. As observed by the US State Department, “court action in cases of extrajudicial killings is slow and uncertain.” The reality of the Indian judicial system is that long delays are the rule rather than the exception, and such delays are measured in years rather than months. Such delays impede the process of bringing to justice those who commit extrajudicial killings, in many cases making conviction impossible due to the length of time that has passed. The failure to ensure that cases of extrajudicial killings are concluded within a reasonable period of time contributes to the climate of impunity that allows extrajudicial killings to continue to occur throughout India.

     Fourth, successive governments have failed to establish an adequate compensation system in India. There is no statutory right to compensation for families of victims of extrajudicial killings. An effective compensation system would operate to deter government officials from committing or authorizing extrajudicial killings, and encourage the families of those murdered to bring their cases to court. In failing to provide adequate compensation, the Indian Government is failing to meet its obligations under international law.

     Fifth, it is well documented that the armed and security forces are rarely held accountable for the commission of extrajudicial killings. Moreover, a perpetrator is more likely to be held to account by way of an internal disciplinary hearing than under the general law. Although it is very difficult to obtain accurate information about such hearings, it seems clear that the punishments awarded for serious human rights violations are grossly inadequate – if punishments are awarded at all. In circumstances where a member of the army or security forces commits a serious human rights violation that also constitutes a serious criminal offence, that person should be charged under the general law and tried in a public court.

     Finally, the Indian Government has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate its opposition to extrajudicial killings. Indeed, there is evidence that both the Central and State Governments actively encourage the practice. For example, there is evidence that Central and State Governments have funded auxiliaries who commit extrajudicial killings and have rewarded police officers who commit extrajudicial killings. Such actions strengthen the conclusion that the Indian Government has adopted an official policy sanctioning the commission of extrajudicial killings.

     It is clear that the Indian Government has failed to establish effective mechanisms to ensure the accountability of the police, security forces and the army. Moreover, the Government steadfastly refuses to change laws that have been rightly condemned as operating to protect those who commit extrajudicial killings. Certainly, there is some awareness that extrajudicial killings occur in India. For example, in successive Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the US Department of State has documented numerous cases of extrajudicial killings in India. However, there is inadequate recognition in the international arena of the gravity of the problem and its systemic nature. The Indian Government must be reminded of its obligations under international law. The right to life is the most fundamental right, and its continued abuse in India through the commission of extrajudicial killings must not be tolerated.

Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of U.P. and anotherAllahabad HC

     In an application under s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal case against police constable for fake encounter, it was argued that unless there is sanction for prosecution u/s 197 Cr.P.C. granted by the State Government, under whose services applicant was employed, he cannot be prosecuted as what ever applicant accused had done was in the discharge of his official duty. Rejecting the plea the court observed that:

"Charge against the applicant is that he was a member of a police party who had committed murder of the deceased and thereafter had fabricated a false story of a fake police encounter. No doubt, police personals are allowed to discharge their duty, apprehend and contained the menace of dacoits and eliminate brigands. This does not give them a license to eliminate innocent people under the cloak of eliminating dacoits. In the present case, such is the allegation. Considering from any hypothesis, murdering of an innocent person under the garb of eliminating the dacoits cannot be considered to be discharged of official duty by the police personals. Concluding contention by learned counsel for the applicant that applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. on the facts of the present case was a desirable necessity does not have appealing thrust and therefore, is hereby repelled."

Supreme Court for guidelines on encounter deaths

     The Supreme Court wants to police the trigger-happy police force and arrest the tendency among investigating agencies to feed media with startling inputs of cases they are handling.

Concerned at the increasing number of encounter killings, it has asked state governments, Union Territories and the Centre to submit their response on several recommendations aimed at curbing encounter killings. The apex court would issue much-needed guidelines on encounters and custodial deaths after the authorities concerned file their affidavits.

     The order comes in response to the People’s Union for Civil Liberties’ (PUCL) appeal against a Bombay high court order. A Bench of justices Dalveer Bhandari and HS Bedi said it would “examine the propriety of police officers briefing the media on the progress of the investigation of a particular case”. The petition would be heard after a month. The judges urged solicitor general Goolam E Vahanvati to assist the court in framing guidelines. Court directed that the proposed recommendations filed by PUCL lawyer Prashant Bhushan be circulated among parties concerned. The recommendations proposed by Bhushan and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) include setting up a separate and independent investigating agency under NHRC or the state human rights commission to probe every encounter killing.

     They also want to curb mindless promotions of cops involved in encounters, often staged to get promotions. PUCL said that unless proved beyond doubt that an encounter was genuine, no officer should be promoted or rewarded. PUCL also wants the compensation money for dependents of every fake encounter killing to be equivalent to the reward money given to the encounter cops.

     The recommendations also stipulate recording of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C admissible as evidence in court, by the magistrate or the doctors attending the encounter victim

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

                 THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION [NHRC] GUIDELINES ON ENCOUNTER DEATHS March 29, 1997 and REVISED GUIDELINES

     Under the law, no one including the police has an unqualified right to take the life of another person. Death of a person by a police officer amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, unless it is established that the causing of death is not an offence in law. If a police officer kills someone in an encounter, s/he must prove that the death was caused either in the legitimate exercise of the right of private defiance or in the use of force, proportional to the resistance offered, while arresting a person accused of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.

     This can only be ascertained by a proper investigation and not otherwise . First Information Reports [FIR] recorded at police stations invariably say that, on sighting the police, the other party opened fire with a view to kill. They give the impression that the concerned officers are justified in causing death, exercising their right of self-defence. So, no attempts are made by the police to find out whether officers who fire the bullets are justified in law to doing so .

     Section 36 (2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 lays down that human rights commissions cannot take up a fresh complaint if more than one year has elapsed since the human rights violation was committed.

Under Sections 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Private Defences]

     Section 46 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] empowers a police officer to touch or confine the body of a person being arrested if s/he does not submit to the officer s custody by word or action (2) empowers a police officer to use all means necessary to effect an arrest if the person being arrested forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him (3) includes a rider that nothing in this section gives a right to cause death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life .

     Responding to public concerns that in reported encounters, sufficient efforts are not made to ascertain the cause of death and whether the deceased have committed any offences, the National Human Rights Commission has directed all states and union territories to ensure adherence to proper police procedure and conduct of impartial investigations.

NHRC Guidelines

     As soon as information about death being caused in a police encounter is received, the officer in-charge of a police station must record it in the appropriate register.

     It is desirable that the investigation should be handed over to an independent investigation agency such as the Criminal Investigation Department [CID], if members of the encounter party belong to the same police station.

     Whenever a specific complaint is made against the police for committing a criminal act that amounts to culpable homicide, an FIR should be registered under appropriate sections of the Indian Penal Code and investigation should invariably be handed over to the CID.

     A magisterial inquiry must invariably be held in all cases where death has occurred in the course of police action. The next of kin of the dead person must invariably be associated with the inquiry.

     Prompt prosecution and disciplinary action must be initiated against the officers found guilty in the magisterial inquiry/ police investigation.

     The question of compensation being given to the dependents of the dead person will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

     No out of turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards will be given to the concerned officers soon after the occurrence. It must be ensured [at all costs] that they are given only after the gallantry of the officer concerned is proven beyond doubt.

     A six monthly statement of all cases of deaths in police action in the state shall be sent by the Director General of Police to the NHRC by January 15 and July 15 every year. The statement may be sent in the following format along-with post- mortem reports and inquest reports [wherever available] and also the inquiry reports:

.(i) Date and place of occurrence

(ii) Police station and district

(iii) Circumstances leading to death:

·      Self defiance in encounter

·      In the course of dispersal of unlawful assembly in the course of effecting arrest

(iv) Brief facts of the incident

(v) Criminal case number

(vi) Investigating agency

(vii) Finding of the magisterial inquiry/ inquiry by senior officers:

(a) disclosing in particular names and designations of police officials, if found responsible for

the deaths; and

(b) whether use of force was justified and action taken was lawful. Eliminating suspected members of outlaw or militant organizations by staging fake encounters amounts to murder. Article 21 of the Constitution lays down that no one shall be deprived of life or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court has said that even a person under death sentence has human rights which are non-negotiable and even a dangerous prisoner, standing trial has basic liberties which cannot be bartered away.

Revised Guidelines/Procedures to be followed in dealing with deaths occurring in encounter deaths

     The guidelines issued by the Commission in respect of procedures to be followed by the State Govts. in dealing with deaths occurring in encounters with the police were circulated to all Chief Secretaries of States and Administrators of Union Territories on 29.3.1997.

     Subsequently on 2.12.2003, revised guidelines of the Commission have been issued and it was emphasized that the States must send intimation to the Commission of all cases of deaths arising out of police encounters. The Commission also recommended the modified procedure to be followed by State Govts.

     In all cases of deaths, in the course of police action, and it was made clear that where the police officer belonging to the same police station are members of the encounter party, whose action resulted in deaths, such cases be handed over for investigation to some other independent investigating agency, such as State CBCID, and whenever a specific complaint is made against the police alleging commission of a criminal act on their part, which makes out a cognizable case of culpable homicide, an FIR to this effect must be registered under appropriate sections of the I.P.C. Such case shall invariably be investigated by the State CBCID. A Magisterial Inquiry must

invariably be held in all cases of deaths which occur in the course of police action. The next of kin of the deceased must invariably be associated in such inquiry.

     All the Chief Ministers and Administrators have been directed to send a six monthly statement of all cases of deaths in police action in the States/ UTs through the Director General of Police to the Commission by the 15th Day of January and July respectively in the perform devised for the purpose.

There is much resistance from the Centre and the States to guidelines on cases of encounter deaths

     The term encounter in the context of counterterrorism has a dubious connotation. Its meaning changes depending on who refers to it. The Central and State governments generally interpret the word to mean genuine encounters, with fake encounters being an exception rather than the rule. Those fighting for civil liberties, however, say the dividing line between genuine and fake encounters is rather tenuous and argue that most of the cases considered by the police as genuine are indeed fake.

     This dichotomy is apparent in the proceedings of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs State of Maharashtra, currently being heard by the Supreme Court. The origin of this case itself is a commentary on the difficulties of distinguishing a fake encounter from a genuine one. Between 1995 and 1997, there were 99 encounters in Maharashtra in which 135 people died.

     A public interest petition filed by the PUCL in 1997 in the Bombay High Court challenging the police version in two of these encounters pointed out that the sequence of events and the modus operandi of the police were identical. After every such incident, the police filed a first information report (FIR) to show that they had fired at and killed the person in self-defence.

     Initially, Justices A.P. Shah (who retired from the Delhi High Court recently) and J.A. Patil of the Bombay High Court heard the matter. In order to give an opportunity to the police to defend themselves, the Bench referred the matter to the Principal Judge of City Civil Court, Bombay. The Principal Judge heard the matter, recorded the evidence, and concluded that the killing of two alleged gangsters, Sada Pawle and Vijay Tandel, was not justified in the exercise of private defence.

     The report of the Principal Judge was submitted to the High Court and the matter came up for final hearing before Justices Arumugam and R.P. Desai. But the new Bench did not consider the prima facie findings arrived at by the previous Bench comprising Justices Shah and Patil and did not refer to the FIR lodged by the police which, by its vague description, exposed the falsity of the encounter.

     The FIR showed that the police, on a tip-off about the possible arrival of the gangsters in a particular area of the city, laid a trap to catch them and, on their arrival, surrounded them and asked them to surrender. Defying them, the gangsters apparently whipped out modern weapons and fired at the police party.

     The police opened fire in retaliation, as a result of which the criminals sustained injuries and later died, the FIR said. No police personnel was injured in the incident. The criminals were said to be in possession of modern weapons and were described as sharpshooters. The Arumugam-Desai Bench reversed the findings of the Principal Judge and concluded that the two encounters were genuine. The Bench, however, allowed the PUCL's prayer to issue guidelines to the police and directed the Maharashtra government to constitute the Maharashtra Human Rights Commission. The PUCL appealed against this verdict in the Supreme Court, mainly on the grounds that the guidelines framed by the High Court were insufficient and that the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in reversing the findings of the Principal Judge. The PUCL's counsel, Prashant Bhushan, brought to the notice of the Supreme Court glaring loopholes in the guidelines suggested by the Bombay High Court and by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Modifying these, Prashant Bhushan suggested a set of 20 guidelines.

NHRC guidelines

     The NHRC had issued a set of guidelines on March 29, 1997, on the procedures to be followed by State governments while dealing with encounter deaths and sought the States' views on them. This was subsequent to the NHRC's order on November 5, 1996, in a complaint against the Andhra Pradesh government, indicating the correct procedure to be followed in such cases.

     The practice in Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere in the event of an encounter death was that the leader of the police party would furnish information to the police station about the encounter and the persons who had been killed. In all such cases, the police took the stand that the deceased persons, on seeing the police, had opened fire at them to kill them and were, therefore, guilty of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

     The police justified their firing and killing as done in self-defence. The information was recorded in the police station, describing the persons killed in the police firing as the accused, and FIRs were drawn up accordingly. Without anymore investigation, the cases were closed as having abated, in view of the death of the accused. No attempt whatsoever was made to ascertain whether the police officers who fired the bullets that resulted in the killings were justified by law to do so.

     In the guidelines, for the first time, the then NHRC Chairperson, Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, told State governments that if an encounter death was not justified as having been caused in exercise of the legitimate right of private defence, or in proper exercise of the power of arrest under Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), the police officer causing the death would be guilty of culpable homicide. Whether the causing of death in an encounter was justified as falling under any of the two conditions could only be ascertained by proper investigation and not otherwise, he said in his letter to the Chief Ministers.

Revised guidelines

     The first guideline proposed by the High Court and endorsed by Prashant Bhushan was that whenever the police received any intelligence or tip-off regarding a crime, it should be entered into a case diary. The Centre rejected this, saying that intelligence inputs might require prompt action and the requirement of recording it in a diary might delay action. Besides, the identity of the tip-off providers could not be revealed in a diary as this would endanger their safety, the Centre said in its counter-affidavit in the case.

     Another guideline, approved by the NHRC and Prashant Bhushan, stated that a magisterial inquiry must invariably be held in all cases of death that occur in the course of police action and that the next of kin of the deceased must invariably be associated with such inquiry. The Centre disagreed with the need for a mandatory magisterial inquiry and wanted the decision to be taken on merit, on a case-by-case basis, by the State government.

     However, it is the Centre's response to the proposed Guideline 13 that exposes the fundamental problem with its understanding of the issue. The NHRC had said that the question of granting compensation to the dependants of the deceased would depend upon the fact and circumstance of each case. Prashant Bhushan proposed that such compensation be determined by the NHRC itself. He added that in every case of a person being killed by the police party in the course of an encounter, the compensation granted must necessarily be at least the same as that granted by the government to the dependants of a police officer killed by terrorists in the course of duty.

     What Prashant Bhushan meant here was a fake encounter. However, by twisting what he proposed, the Centre in its counter–affidavit said that “the Ministry of Home Affairs strongly opposes the petitioner's suggestion of placing a slain terrorist at par with a martyr policeman”.

Manipur, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Punjab and Delhi opposed some of the suggestions made by Prashant Bhushan as impractical.

     Among other things, he proposed that a dedicated investigative team or separate cadre of the police be attached to the NHRC or State Human Rights Commissions to investigate encounters and that until such a cadre was established, the NHRC should direct as to who would conduct independent investigations. While the Centre chose to be silent on this proposal, the Gujarat government opined in its counter-affidavit that august bodies such as the NHRC and the SHRC should not be burdened with routine police work as their status was that of a quasi-judicial body. The Gujarat government also opposed the proposal for mandatory magisterial inquiries in all police actions, as it feared that it would result in the paralysis of the police machinery.

     The NHRC had recommended that prompt prosecution and disciplinary action should be initiated against all officers found guilty in the magisterial inquiry and police investigation and that no out-of-turn promotion or gallantry rewards should be bestowed on officers concerned soon after encounter deaths. Only when the gallantry of such officers was established beyond doubt should such rewards be given, it said. Prashant Bhushan, however, cautioned that such rewards might be an incentive for officers to conduct encounters.

     The Gujarat government opposed the proposal saying it would have an adverse effect on internal security. No policeman would ever venture into situations that may call for urgent police action, it said in its counter-affidavit. The Bihar government too felt that it would adversely impact the morale of the police.

     In February 2009, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, drawing on the NHRC's guidelines, held that in all cases of encounter deaths at the hands of the police, a) an FIR must be registered; b) an independent and impartial investigation be ensured; and c) the plea for self-defence must be established at the stage of trial and not during the course of investigation. Aggrieved by this judgment, the Andhra Pradesh Police Association approached the Supreme Court Bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan (at present the Chairman of the NHRC), and obtained an interim ex parte stay on it. The stay baffled observers and civil liberty activists.

     The crux of the argument of the Association is that it will lower the morale of the police and facilitate the growth of Maoism in the State. The answer from the champions of civil liberty to this imaginary grievance is this: if the encounter is indeed genuine, why should the police be apprehensive of the responsibility imposed on them by the High Court to prove their innocence?

Cases of Encounter Deaths by NHRC

     The complainant in this case is Kayita Lachchaiah. Deceased Kayita Yakaiah was neither a member of the Naxallite groups nor had he ever participated in Naxallite activities. There was a pending criminal case against him in a case relating to the burning of RTC bus. He was involved along with 26 others in that case. He was regularly appearing in court in this case. The family had one acre of wet land and about the same extent of dry land which the deceased was cultivating and he was also engaged in lorry loading work with 14 labourers employed under him. On 25.5.1993, after loading four lorries he had come to the village to take bidi leaves and after finishing that job he returned home around 10 PM and retired by 11 PM. By 1 AM, 60 to 70 policemen came to the village and when they reached his house, all the members of the family were asleep. Some 30 policemen entered into the house. They lighted a powerful torch which made PW 3 wake up. When he shouted, the other members of the family were aroused from sleep. They identified Kumaraswamy, Sub Inspector of Police who was then trying to take out Yakaiah. When the members of the family prevented his being taken away, force was applied by the police. On 26.5.1993 and the day following, PWs 1 and 3 accompanied by the Village Sarpanch (PWG) and some others went to the neighboring police stations to ascertain the whereabouts of the deceased. He was alleged to have been killed at 9 AM on 26.5.1993 within Eturnagaram Police Station limits. PWs 1 and 2, who were respectively father and mother of the deceased, were informed about the killing of the deceased in the hands of the police. The police version was that the deceased was an un-identified naxallite notwithstanding the fact that he was arrested by the police in the pending case and had been appearing in the court on the fixed dates. Madhusudan, Sub Inspector of Police of Mangapet Police Station (RW 1), who led the raiding party which participated in the alleged encounter accepted in cross-examination that many of the Naxallites he confronted were wearing olive green uniform but the deceased was not in such uniform. The inquest report shows that the deceased was wearing a lungi and a shirt. PW 4, sister of the deceased, stated to the Commission that police had made serious attempts to keep the witnesses away from the Commission and to give effect to their designs, the widow of the deceased and PW 4 herself had been forcibly taken by the police to the village of the deceased about 140 kms from their own place. The police witnesses accepted the position that there were 24 policemen and 12 naxallites involved in the alleged encounter. The firing went on for half an hour in broad day light, and the distance between the two parties was only 50 yards. Yet no policeman sustained any injury while all the alleged naxallites were killed. The deceased, as would appear from the post-mortem report (Exhibit R 7) had three fractured bones; obviously these could not have been caused by gun fire and could fit into the position that the deceased had sustained injuries on account of torture and was later killed. It has been contended that this position is also suggestive of the fact that the deceased had been taken to the police station, assaulted there and later was shot dead. The bullet injuries are on the upper part of the body - the chest, shoulder, etc - which is indicative of the fact that the intention was to kill. Counsel for the complainant contended that the oral and documentary evidence on record lead to the following conclusions:

I. The deceased was not a naxallite but a peasant and a lorry loading worker by occupation.

II. There was only one criminal case of arson against him pending on the date of occurrence.

III. He had been taken into police custody from his house in the presence of many witnesses and had been killed in the alleged encounter.

IV. The Magisterial enquiry was delayed for a long period and was completed only when the Commission decided to include this case within the ambit of enquiry.

V. Serious attempt was made by the police to keep the witnesses away from

the Commission. We have read through the evidence and prima facie the conclusions suggested

above, in our opinion, are borne out by the evidence.

Case no. 2

      Deceased Sangaiah² was a resident of village Variguntham in Medak District of Andhra Pradesh and was an activist of CPI(ML). On 25th May, 1993, he went to his own agricultural lands, took the meal brought there by his wife and he again went to Variguntham, sent word to his wife and they met in the field. According to the complainant, the deceased was taken away by the police from the place of work and was shot dead. The version of the incident by the respondent was that while combing the local forest area they found a group of extremists and an encounter followed at about 5 AM and in the exchange of fire the deceased died.

     The complainant examined four witnesses to support the version and the State examined one witness. The compainant’s witnesses stated that the deceased was shot dead in the alleged encounter. Mr Sitapati cross-examined the complaint’s witness at length. The evidence of the witness, which has been stated to be natural, has been asked to be brushed aside. RW-1 is the then Inspector of Police, Medak Circle. From his cross-examination it appears that he was also the Investigating Officer of the case registered on his report. It is the admitted position that while on complainant’s side there has been death, on the side of the police there was not even a single abrasion caused by the alleged exchange of fire. The autopsy report indicates three gun shot injuries and an abrasion on the person of the deceased. On a close scrutiny of the evidence, prima facie it appears that the evidence of picking up the deceased from the rural agricultural field has not been shaken. The complainant himself assumed the role of Investigating Officer with a view to hampering an adequate investigation.

Case No.3

     Varikuppala Shankaraiah, was not involved in any naxallite activity nor had he been arrested or even mentioned in any police record. Three years before his death, he shifted from his paternal to the maternal village Inolu in Achampet Mandal with a view to helping his Uncle in the construction of a school building. After the work was over, he stayed on as a mason in the village along with his wife. The deceased was constructing the house of one Madavath Madhya by June, 1993. In the morning of 5.6.1993, the deceased and his wife, PW 1, left the village to reach the hamlet where they had undertaken work. Around 6 PM, Shantamma came back alone to Inolu and told PW 1 that the deceased had gone to Achampet government hospital to get the treatment of his leg injury. On his return by bus, near the check post outside Achampet, four policemen in plain clothes forced him to get down from the bus. On 6.6.1993 Shantamma and PW 1 made enquiries at Achampet and Amrabad Police Stations, but the police told them that they knew nothing about the arrest of the deceased. The leader of the police party, who participated in the alleged encounter resulting in the death, sent information to the Amrabad Police Station at 7 AM on 6.6.1993 about the occurrence in which the deceased had been killed. There is evidence to show that the wife and the relatives were not informed about the incident and they came to know about it through newspaper and when they went to see the body, they saw several injuries apart from those caused by gun shots. The post-mortem report referred to three contusions, one of which was close to the eye. The post-mortem Doctor, stated that these injuries could have been caused by a blunt weapon. A Magisterial enquiry had been held where PWs 5, 6 and 10 before us had given evidence. The Magisterial Enquiry had not been completed for more than 2 years. The Inspector of Police, RW-1, who led the raiding party, himself became the Investigating Officer. He admitted in cross-examination that the deceased was not wanted in any criminal case by the police. The deceased was wearing a white pant and a pink colored shirt and not the olive green uniform usually worn by the PWG activists. Pressure had been put on some of the witnesses examined by us in the left over Magisterial enquiry. The evidence of PW 1 clearly indicates that

there were 17 policemen and 10 to 12 naxallites in the alleged encounter. The exchange of fire is said to have taken place for half an hour. The distance between the police and the naxallites was about 50 yards and yet there was no injury to the policemen.

Case No.4

One Badavath Jaitya, son of PW-1 is the deceased, Badavath Jagni, wife of the deceased is PW-2. The deceased is claimed not to be a naxallite but he had been implicated in cases connected with naxallite activities because local landlords had given false information to the police. He had surrendered to the police and Government had given him 12 bicycles to run a cycle taxi shop but he sold the bicycles as he could not run it. His family land was sold and he was making arrangements with the money thus obtained to go to the Gulf countries. From 1989 onwards, the deceased was busy in his efforts for going over to the Gulf countries. He was in Bombay for most of the time and had come to the village only 5 to 6 times in those four years. He was away

and did not appear in the pending cases; so non-billable warrants were taken out. On a joint application of his and his wife, Government had sanctioned a house loan. The deceased had, therefore, come from Bombay to complete the transaction preceding the obtaining of the loan. He was killed within 2 days of his return on 2nd October, 1993. The deceased was taken by four people, who had come on two scooters, to one side of the road and he was directly shot dead. One of these four men went in a vehicle and came back with many policemen in a jeep and a van. When the deceased was forcibly taken, no one mentioned that there was a warrant against him to be executed. The records produced by the police before the Commission show that the deceased had surrendered to the police in response to an appeal made by the State Chief Minister to naxallites on 9th August 1989. While he was in jail, he was shown as involved in three cases in all. The Investigating Officer, RW-2, admitted before the Commission that when he proceeded to enquire into the case, no local man supported the police stand.

Police encounter in India

     The police in Indian metro cities such as Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata have a very high rate when it comes to encounter killings. Many of them have been quite controversial in nature. So far however no human rights group lawyer has been successfully able to prove that the encounters were staged. The fact that the dead person had a criminal background was proven beyond doubt, and the court never gave a verdict that the dead person was in illegal custody.

     Though highly controversial from an official point of view, there hasn't been much action taken against such activities by the police. This is attributed to the common understanding that "staged encounters" are primarily carried out by police to kill high profile and extremely dangerous criminals whom the Indian Police Service have been unable to prosecute legally (due to lack of evidence or powerful political connections). The most notorious case has been the encounter killing of Veerappan, Sada Pawle and Vijay Tandel, and the court acquitted the police officer Sub Inspector VR Dhobale. See also Daya Nayak, Pradeep Sharma, Sachin Waze.

     In recent times a number of films have been based on the theme of police encounters. The most noted of them include Ab Tak Chappan, Encounter: The Killing,Kaagar, Risk, Shootout at Lokhandwala. Vikram Chandra's new novel Sacred Games is also based on the police force in Mumbai and provides a rivetting account of police encounters.

Mumbai

     On January 11, 1982, gangster Manya Surve was shot dead by police officers Raja Tambat and Isaque Bagwan at the Wadala area, in what turned out to be the city's first encounter killing.

Former Police Inspector Pradeep Sharma is India's most notorious encounter specialist, who has killed 113 alleged gangsters and dacoits. He once said, "Criminals are filth and I'm the cleaner". He was fired in August 2008 for extortion of money from the underworld but was cleared of all charges and reinstated in May 2009.

Some of the well known encounter specialists (with encounter killing count in brackets):

·      Police Inspector Pradeep Sharma – 104

·      Sub-Inspector Daya Nayak – 82

·      Inspector Praful Bhosale – 77

·      Assistant Sub-Inspector(ASI) Ravindra Angre – 51

·      Assistant Inspector of Police Sachin Hindurao Vaze – 63

·      Police Inspector Vijay Salaskar (Killed in November 2008 Mumbai attacks) – 75–80

·      Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma – 75 {Killed in Batla House Encounter}

All of the above listed Officers served with Mumbai Police and Delhi Police.

Punjab

     Police encounter is a term used by Indian security forces to explain and excuse the death of an individual at their hands. The term was often used during the Punjab insurgency between 1984 and 1995. During this time, Punjab police officials would often report “encounters” to local newspapers and to the family members of those killed. The victim was typically a person the police deemed to be a militant, or to be involved in the militant separatist movement, though proof of alleged militant involvement was rarely given. Such encounters have also been referred to as “staged encounters” or “fake encounters,” as these deaths were often believed to be the result of torture or outright execution. Ultimately, the practice became so common that “encounter” became synonymous with extrajudicial execution.

The Punjab police specifically targeted the families of suspected militants in encounter killings to punish them.

     It is alleged that police would typically take a suspected militant into custody without filing an arrest report. If the suspect died during interrogation, security forces would deny ever taking the person into custody and instead claim that they were killed during an armed encounter.It is alleged that police would add weapons to the dead body to demonstrate cause for killing the individual, stage managing the encounter, leading to the popular phrase “fake encounter killing.” They would also concoct a story about militants staging an attack, or the suspect attempting to escape while being escorted to recover militant arms. At times, the Punjab police applied for and received production warrants that allowed them to remove individuals accused in terrorism cases from jail, and whereupon they often killed the detainees in fake encounters. Sukhwinder Singh Bhatti, a criminal defense attorney in Punjab who defended such suspects, himself disappeared in May 1994

Unlawful killing by the police in tamil nadu

     The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry) would like to register in the strongest terms, our condemnation of the statement of the Joint Commissioner of Police (Central), Mr. M.K.Jha who is reported in the Hindu dated 13.10.2003 that the police will “WIPE OUT” gangs involved in illegal mediation (Katta panchayat). We would like to point out that such language is not only intemperate and undignified but also mirrors the way some in the police view human beings – as vermins to be exterminated. It also reflects the scorn and disregard for human rights and rule of law. The role of the police is limited to investigation and prosecution of offences and securing justice through the courts of law.

     They do not have the authority to dispense summary justice as witnessed by the increasing trend of executions by way of `encounter deaths’. These summary executions make the police as guilty as those dealing in katta panchayat, if not more so.

     We would like to record our concern over the continuing trend of encounter killings taking place in Chennai city and in the State. In the last four years the Tamil Nadu police have shot dead 23 criminals, including a few notorious criminals like Vellai Ravi and Sudalaimani.The shooting down of Venkatesan `Pannayar’ on 26.9.2003 by a special squad of the City Police in his apartment in a residential complex is the latest in a spate of encounter deaths all over the city in recent months. What is disturbing is that about 18 persons have been shot dead in encounters in the last two and a half years, with a shocking number of ten encounter deaths within the last 12 months itself.

     What concerns us is that in none of the encounter incidents have the police been able to nab the main person highlighted by the police by catchy soubriquets like `kingpins’, `desperadoes’, `ganglords’ and so on. In all the cases the police have painted a picture of the persons killed as being major underworld dons or gang leaders who shot at the police who retaliated killing them on the spot. The repeated failure of the police in not being able to apprehend the main culprit and of being forced to fatally shoot down the persons points out to only one of two alternatives: either the police strategy is highly flawed and the police is also highly inefficient in their ability to apprehend hard core criminals; if this is not true, then the police defence of firing in self defence is a mere fig leaf to cover deliberately made decisions to eliminate or liquidate persons found threatening to the ruling political, economic and bureaucratic interests.

     A moot question remains to be asked: how could such criminals become so powerful without the overt and covert support of politicians and corrupt bureaucrats in the administration and police? What have the police done in tracking down the support received by these criminal gang lords from politicians and officials and prosecuting them for the same? The famous VORA COMMITTEE REPORT comprehensively established the intimate links between corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and criminals and the way in which these interests have been able to use the law and the State institutions to their advantage. The mafia interests have aggrandized so much powers to themselves that they have become a law unto themselves; at the same time, they have openly been using the very same institutions of law enforcement to silence anyone daring to challenge them. Surely Tamil Nadu is not an exception to this national malady.

We assert that the POLICE ARE DUTYBOUND TO DISCLOSE THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE POLICE AGAINST ALL THOSE WHO SHIELDED, SUPPORTED, USED AND BENEFITED FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF THOSE WHO WERE SLAIN IN ENCOUNTER DEATHS.
     The police cannot use the fact of the killing of the so called criminals to close the cases in investigating which they were reportedly forced to shoot down the dead persons. Prosecution should be launched against all persons, be they politicians, officials or others. Apropos the legal maxim, justice should not only be done but be seen to be done.

     PUCL would like to highlight that the law of the country does not empower police officials to shoot and kill persons. Even in those exceptional cases when the police are forced to shoot in self defenses the law of the land dictates that FIRs must be registered in every encounter death and investigation conducted. The plea of self defiance can be taken by the police only at the time of trial.
     We stress that the police are covered by the same laws as everyone else in this country. Should a person kill another person, the settled position in law is that a case of homicide must be registered against the killer and a prosecution begun. If the killing was done as an act of self-defense, the person may state that in his or her trial – but they cannot escape trial itself.
The same rule applies to police officers. This has been stressed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh ¹and by the National Human Rights Commission, both of which have ruled that cases must be registered against police personnel responsible for encounter deaths. It is for the courts to decide whether or not a killing was an act of self-defense. The police do not have any power to simply excuse themselves from investigation and trial.
     We would like to point out that we are not suggesting that persons with criminal antecedents and records be allowed to operate freely or that they should not be prosecuted or apprehended. To the contrary, we support legal action against all crime breakers, their sponsors and supporters, whoever and wherever they are. What we are against is the police taking law into their own hands and using their brute power to dispense summary justice in the form of staged encounter killings. The police have a duty and constitutional obligation to follow the procedures prescribed in law and to work within the four corners of the law.

     We also call upon all citizens to support this demand. We stress repeatedly that the issue is not the guilt or innocence of the person killed or their alleged crimes. The issue is that, in a democracy, the police have to be held to the same rules and the same laws as the rest of us. If we do otherwise, we are opening the doors for a lawless state – and soon we will find that there are no rules or laws left at all.

Thus, the PUCL demands that the government take the following actions:

     Register cases against the police personnel responsible for the various encounter deaths which          

have taken place.

·      Ensure that these cases are investigated by an independent agency, such as the CBI;

·      Register cases and prosecute all the other police personnel involved in the recent spate of encounter killings.

     As we have pointed out encounters killings is today becoming more than an exceptional phenomena; it has rather become an accepted strategy of the police. It is ironical that when even courts are mandated by law to give special reasons before imposing death penalty the Tamil Nadu police are carrying out summary executions with impunity. International covenants advocate abolition of death sentence. Our Supreme Court has advocated the imposition of death penalty only in the rarest of rare cases. Unmindful of this, the State Police by declaring that gangs will be “wiped out” has not only given a go by to the fundamental principle that every accused is presumed innocent till proved guilty but have also demonstrated that they are above the law.

     Members of civil society bear a responsibility to raise their voices against such recourse to unbridled use of force by the police and ensure that the police comply with the rule of law.

Veerappan fake encounter

     Veerappan was a sandalwood smuggler, in addition to looting ivory after killing elephants in Tamil Nadu forests. Due to the frequent police operations he was tightened by law, Veerappan started hostage-taking for ransom. After a killing incident in 1987, Veerappan became notorious, but the real hunt was stated to have begun from 1990. Since then, there had been many kidnap, demands and negotiations by him.

     The hunt for the 60-62 year-old Veerappan had gone on for decades. He was involved in brutal killings or hostage taking. Veerappan had abducted Kannada film icon Rajkumar and held hostage for 100 days in 2000 and killed former Karnataka Minister H Nagappa in 2002.Veerappan is said to have killed his first man when he was just 17. Over the next 35 years, he’s believed to have murdered more than 120 people, about 40 police officers and 80 civilians. Soon after Mr. Rajkumar’s release, two STFs (Karnataka and Tamil nadu) were assisted by the Central Reserve Police Force along with a team of commandos.

     At least about 130 persons were killed as also 2,000 elephants in the Veerappan gang’s operations in the jungles between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Normally after committing a crime in Tamil Nadu, Veerappan would get into the jungles of Karnataka or even Kerala. Most of the villages in the jungles were almost under his control Informers were invariably killed by him After being on the run from law for nearly three decades, The STF headed by K. Vijay Kumar (ADGP Tamil Nadu), shot Veerappan dead in the dark hours of October 18, 2004 at Papparapatti village in Tamil Nadu’s Dharmapuri district. Named ‘Operation Cocoon‘, the successful encounter which was very well planned and executed by STF — – which ended a bloody era in Indian history.

Human rights activists for Veerappan fake encounter

     Human rights activists have claimed that the Special Task Force had staged-managed the encounter in which forest brigand Veerappan and his three associates were killed in October last year. activists of 10 human rights organizations’ have claimed that a lady known to Veerappan had drugged the four. The STF took them in its custody after they fell unconscious and took them to a camp near the river Cauvery.

      There, the four were tortured and killed, the activists told a press conference in Chennai.

The activists also released a report of a fact-finding team, comprising representatives of eight human rights groups from Tamil Nadu, Karnataka , Andhra Pradesh and Pondicherry, which claimed that the brigand was in STF custody for two days before he was killed.

     The fact-finding team interviewed many locals of the region where Veerappan was active and also his relatives.

     The locals told the team they found many police vehicles in the area on the evening of October 16, the day Veerappan was caught by the STF, the spokesman of the activists, Ramaswamy, who represented the People's Democratic Forum of Karnataka, said.

He said Veerappan's photographs showed wound marks on his body and indicated he was tortured. Ramaswamy said the report would be submitted to the Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh governments. The activists would also file a public interest litigation in court to ascertain the truth about Veerappan's killing.

Coimbatore Encounter : Accused Shot Dead By Police

     The prime accused in the abduction, sexual assault and murder of ten-year-old girl and her seven-year-old brother, Mohan alias Mohanraj alias Mohanakrishnan (27), was shot dead in an encounter on the Podanur-Vellalore road around 5.30 a.m. on Tuesday.

     On October 29, the former school van driver kidnapped the children of textile merchant Ranjith and Sangeetha of RG Street. The accused was joined by his accomplice Manoharan (23) of Angalakurichi near Pollachi.

     The duo had originally planned to seek ransom from the parents but changed their mind subsequently. They sexually assaulted the girl and physically tortured the boy before drowning them in the PAP canal.

     The girl's body was recovered near Vavipalayam close to Pongalur, 77 km from the Thirumurthy hills and the boy's body was recovered on Sunday noon.

     The police arrested both the accused and cases were registered for abduction, sexual assault and murder besides concealment of evidence.

     On Monday (November 8), the police took custody of the accused for investigation. On Tuesday, the police took both of them from the Saravanampatty police station at 5.30 a.m. for identification of the places where they committed the offence.

     They were escorted by Inspectors Kanagasabapathy and Annadurai besides Sub-Inspectors Muthumalai and Jothi.

     Manoharan was taken in the first vehicle and Mohanraj in the second vehicle.

     When the vehicle was crossing the Vellalore compost yard of the Coimbatore Corporation on the Podanur-Vellalore road, Mohanraj allegedly snatched the pistol of Sub-Inspector Jothi and placed it at the head of the Head Constable-cum-driver Annadurai and ordered him to drive towards Kerala. When the driver failed to stop, he opened fire in which Jothi sustained an injury in his right arm, while a bullet pierced the stomach of Sub-Inspector Muthumalai.

     Immediately, Muthumalai fired two shots in the head of the accused and Inspector Annadurai opened fire at the chest causing his instant death.

     City Police Commissioner C. Sylendra Babu said,the police opened fire to prevent the accused from killing the police personnel and to foil his attempt to escape from custody.

Police encounter in Madurai

     A suspect in chain-snatching cases, Kaviarasu alias Kaviarasan (30), and his accomplice Murugan alias ‘Kalmandayan’ Murugan (28) of Usilampatti in Madurai district, were shot dead by the police in an encounter near Silaiman police check-post in Madurai rural district.

After a series of chain-snatching offences were reported in Madurai city and its periphery, Madurai City Commissioner of Police P. Balasubramanian had formed special teams to monitor the movement of suspects.

     Night patrolling was introduced, and police personnel were deployed to check vehicles at different locations during day-time as chain-snatching cases were reported in many busy and suburban locations in the recent past. The two persons, who moved on stolen two-wheelers, targeted women who were alone. Inspector-General of Police (south zone) S.S. Krishnamoorthy told ,led by Assistant Commissioner of Police Vellathurai, spotted the duo on a two-wheeler at the check-post. Murugan and Kaviarasu stopped, but started attacking the police with deadly weapons, leaving Keerathurai Sub-Inspector of Police Thennarasu injured. The team retaliated by opening fire from a pistol, and both of them suffered serious injuries. At the Government Rajaji Hospital where they were taken, they were declared ‘brought dead’.

     The Silaiman police have registered a case. An inquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer has been ordered. Mr. Krishnamoorthy said Kaviarasu, the son of a former police constable, had over 100 cases, including chain-snatching, robbery, burglary and rape pending against him in Madurai, Theni, Tirupur and Coimbatore. Both of them came out on bail in January. Deputy Commissioners of Police J. Rajendran, P.C. Thenmozhi and V. Jeyashri were at the site where the encounter took place.

     According to police sources, Kaviarasu’s modus operandi was to rent a house in a busy locality. To avoid raising suspicion, he would come in the company of a woman. During the day he would look out for locked homes and strike at night. On some occasions he barged into homes where senior citizens lived alone. Kaviarasu used to attack those who raised an alarm. After committing the crime, he would escape to another town and remain in hiding for a fortnight.

Police encounter in kerala

Chambal Bandit King killed in police encounter with the encounter death of 61-year-old Dadua in the Chitrakoot forests — following those of Rambabu Gadaria, Jagjivan Parihar and Nirbhay Gujjar in the past one year — all the leading gangs of Chambal have been busted, police sources said. Dadua was Chambal’s last star bandit who had backed the Samajwadi Party in the April-May state elections, ending a three-decade reign of terror over more than half a dozen districts in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh border.dacoit Dadua alias Shiv Kumar Patel things went horribly wrong for the special task force (STF) of Uttar Pradesh Police. Police officers who were distributing lardoons and invoking the name of chief minister Miss Mayawati for the successful operation yesterday were today announcing compensation for six jawans killed in an encounter with another dacoit Ambika Patel alias Thokia.

     Six jawans of the Special Task Force (STF) and a police informer were killed when the dreaded Thokia gang dacoits fired at them near Kusumhia forests in Banda district of Bundelkhand region. Seven other STF jawans were injured.

Police: Handling of Juveniles

          Juveniles represent a special set of problems for the police. First, police have more contact with juveniles, who are hanging out on the streets, and this might cause some anxiety for other citizens in the area. Second, juveniles have more negative attitudes toward the police, possibly because of their increased contacts with police

     Police interact with juveniles in many ways. Street level patrol officers interact with many youth who are suspects and victims, only a fraction of whom are formally processed into the juvenile justice system. These interactions occur either as police respond to dispatched calls for police service or as police initiate encounters with youth, who may or may not be involved in mischief, during the work day. Although many police departments have specialized juvenile units or bureaus to handle juveniles, these officers usually do not play a role in juvenile justice until a patrol officer decides to formally process a youth (this only occurs approximately 15% of the time) or refers an incident report involving a youth to the juvenile unit. Juvenile specialists usually do not respond to calls for police service that involve juveniles and they are not involved in most police-juvenile interactions.

     Research on police-juvenile interactions conducted in the 1960s and 1970s reported that two thirds to three-quarters of the encounters were more likely than not the result of a complainant's request for police assistance and that police initiated only a small fraction of their encounters with youth. Research undertaken in the late 1990s suggests that police were initiating about half of their encounters with juveniles . This is in line with what we might expect from contemporary police officers working in the community policing era, where they are expected to pay greater attention to the less serious quality-of-life offenses, in which juveniles are likely to be involved. Other police interactions with juveniles are the result of a citizen's request—either by calling the department and requesting service or by flagging down an officer who happens to be in the neighborhood.

     These interactions tend to be of a minor legal nature . They rarely involve serious, personal offenses and more likely the encounters involve public disorder offenses, nonviolent offenses, or suspicious circumstances that do not require any formal action be taken by the police. Evidence from the 1990s reveals that police encounters with youth typically involve only one juvenile and usually there is not a victim or complainant present during the encounter. When a victim is present, they rarely request that the police arrest the juvenile—they are more likely to request other police actions (not to arrest, to warn, and the like). Further, police generally do not have any prior knowledge of the youth with whom they interact, and as a result they must make decisions with the limited information available.

Rights During a Police Encounter

     In a police encounter these rules will help protect your civil rights and improve your chances of driving or walking away safely. (Only exceptions are border searches and airport searches.)

1). Keep Private Items Out of View

     This is common sense: Always keep any private items that you don’t want others to see out of sight. Legally speaking, police do not need a search warrant in order to confiscate any illegal items that are in plain view.

2). Be Courteous & Non-Confrontational

     The first thing you should say to the officer is, “Hello officer. Can you tell me why I am being stopped?” The officer may give you a hard time or say, “Why do you think I stopped you?” Tell the officer you don’t know. Most importantly, do not apologize after you get stopped, because that can be considered an admission of guilt and could be used against you later in court. Show your identification if it’s requested. Be respectful and non-confrontational. Refer to the police as “Sir,” “Ma’am,” or “Officer.” Remain calm and quiet while the officer is reviewing your documents. If the officer writes you a ticket, accept it quietly and never complain. Listen to any instruction on paying the fine or contesting the ticket, and immediately leave. If you are pulled over in a car, the first thing you should to do is turn your car off, turn the dome light on (if it’s nighttime), roll down the window, and keep your hands on the steering wheel. Don’t immediately reach into your glove compartment for your license and registration. Officers want to be able to see your hands for their own safety. Wait until the officer asks to see your paperwork before retrieving your documents.

3). Say No to Search Requests

     If a police officer asks your permission to search, the answer is always no. You should refuse to consent by saying, “Officer, I know you want to do your job, but I do not consent to any searches of my private property.” You are under no obligation to consent. The only reason an officer asks your permission is because he doesn’t have enough evidence to search without your consent. If you consent to a search request you give up one of the most important constitutional rights you have—your Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police officers are not required to inform you of your rights before asking you to consent to a search. If the officer searches you in spite of your objection, your attorney can argue that any evidence found during the search was discovered through an illegal search and should be thrown out of court.

 4). Determine if You Can Leave

     You have the right to terminate an encounter with a police officer unless you are being detained under police custody or have been arrested. The general rule is that you don't have to answer any questions that the police ask you. This rule comes from the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects you against self-incrimination. If you cannot tell if you are allowed to leave, say to the officer, “I have to be on my way. Am I free to go?” If the officer says “Yes,” tell him to have a nice day, and leave immediately. If the officer’s answer is ambiguous, or if he asks you another unrelated question, persist by asking “am I being detained, or can I go now?” If the officer says “No,” you are being detained, and you may be placed under arrest. If this is the case, reassert your rights as outlined above, and follow Rules 5 and 6.

5). Do Not Answer Questions without

Your Attorney Present

     Do not answer questions without a lawyer representing you present. Anything you say can, and probably will, be used against you. In just about any case imaginable, a person is best off not answering any questions about his involvement in anything illegal. Assert your Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by saying these exact words: “Officer, I have nothing to say until I speak with a lawyer.”

6). Do Not Physically Resist

     If the police proceed to detain, search, or arrest you despite your wishes—do not physically resist. You may state clearly but non-confrontationally: “Officer, I am not resisting arrest and I do not consent to any searches.” Or you may assert your rights by simply saying nothing until you can speak with an Attorney.

How to Handle Police Encounters

     We were all taught as children to run to the police for help because they are there to protect us and serve our communities. But as adults, the sound of a police siren is enough to make the most put-together, confident person become a bumbling buffoon. Whether you know you did something wrong, or you know you are innocent, there are a few simple rules to successfully handling a police encounter.

In Your Car

%1.                        Pull your car over as soon as safely possible.

%1.                        Roll down your window when the police officer approaches your car.

%1.                        Remain calm, keep you hands where the officer can see them and be aware of your body movements.

%1.                        Provide the officer with your driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance, upon the officer's request.

%1.                        Keep a respectful attitude toward the police officer, even if you feel you have been accused of something you didn't do. Remember, there is a time and a place to argue your side, but that time and place is not on the side of the road.

%1.                        Sign your ticket if you are given one, even if you are going to fight it later in court.

At Your Home

%1.                        Ask to see a warrant and a badge before allowing anyone claiming to be a police officer into your home.

%1.                        Cooperate fully with the officers and provide any information requested that is pertinent to their search.

%1.                        Show or tell officers where questionable items or weapons are in your home.

%1.                        Maintain a cordial attitude with the police officers. Causing a scene and arguing may prolong their need to be in your home, and may make the situation worse for you.

Conclusion

     No one including the police has an unqualified right to take the life of another person. No statute deals about police encounter but police officers justify the police encounter in the name of maintenance of  law and order. But encounter can be considered if there is any real likelihood of mayhem beyond the control of policemen.  The criminals must be given chance to reform themselves  and their punishment cannot be decided by any police officer. The criminals when they apprehended must be produced before the court of law,  because “All are equal before the law  and no one cannot take law in their hands”. “criminals are not born, they are made from society”. So, the efforts must be taken  at the gross root levels to reduce criminal activities and society must provide sufficient opportunity for the criminals to reform themselves.

WEBLIOGRAPHY:

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Encounter_killings_by_police

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_sc-for-guidelines-on-encounter-and-custodial-deaths_1207090

http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF71.htm

http://nhrc.nic.in/CasesOfEncounterDeaths.htm

http://civillibertiesindia.org/extra_judicial_killing_encounter_killing_0

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2717/stories/20100827271702900.htm

http://www.india-server.com/news/coimbatore-encounter-accused-shot-dead-35271.html

http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/10/stories/2010111061590100.htm

http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/fake_encounter_killings_in_tamil_nadu.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encounter_killings_by_police

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Youth-killed-in-police-encounter-parents-cry-foul/articleshow/4737793.cms

http://www.twocircles.net/2010mar25/every_second_police_encounter_india_fake.html

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1662/Police-Handling-Juveniles-Police-juvenile-interactions.html