Introduction:

The Bombay High Court is hearing a plea filed by the father of an accused in a school sexual assault case in Badlapur, who died in an alleged fake encounter. The petitioner has sought an investigation into the incident, alleging police misconduct and demanding registration of an FIR against the involved officers. A Magistrate Enquiry report was submitted before a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale, concluding that the police’s actions leading to the death of the accused were “unjustified.” The report found no evidence supporting the police’s claim of private defence, stating the force used by five officers was excessive and culpable.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner argued that the encounter was a deliberate and orchestrated killing, aimed at silencing the accused. It was contended that the accused, not being physically robust, could have been easily subdued without lethal force. The petitioner further highlighted inconsistencies in the police version, including the absence of the deceased’s fingerprints on the firearm allegedly used in the incident. The plea also referred to the socio-economic plight of the family following the encounter, emphasizing their eviction from their home and reliance on begging for survival. This, the petitioner argued, underscored the far-reaching consequences of the alleged extrajudicial act, rendering their situation desperate and warranting immediate judicial intervention.

Arguments by the State:

The State, represented by Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar and Additional Public Prosecutor Prajakta Shinde, maintained that the police officers acted in private defence. They argued that the officers had been compelled to use force in the heat of the moment, given the accused’s alleged attempt to flee and pose a threat. However, the State assured the Court that it would adhere to legal provisions and proceed to register an FIR against the officers if the investigation so warranted. The prosecution urged the Court to consider the circumstances surrounding the incident and avoid premature conclusions.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

The Court, while considering the Magistrate Enquiry report, expressed serious concerns about the actions of the police. The bench remarked that the report’s findings undermined the defence of private action claimed by the officers, stating that their actions appeared disproportionate and uncalled for. The Court noted that the absence of fingerprints on the firearm further eroded the credibility of the police narrative.

Earlier, on 25 September 2024, the Court had remarked on the improbability of the accused overpowering multiple officers, suggesting the situation could have been handled without fatal force. These observations were reiterated during the current hearing, with the bench questioning the competence and judgment of the officer who fired the fatal shot, emphasizing that as an Assistant Police Inspector, he should have been better equipped to handle the situation non-lethally.

Taking into account the report and the State’s assurance of legal compliance, the Court directed the registration of an FIR against the implicated officers. It further ordered a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the encounter, underlining the need for accountability and transparency. The bench also emphasized the importance of balancing law enforcement prerogatives with human rights protections, cautioning against misuse of authority under the guise of duty.

The Court acknowledged the hardships faced by the petitioner and his family, highlighting their allegations of social ostracism and financial destitution. It urged the State to consider measures for their rehabilitation, including the provision of immediate relief, to ensure their dignity and well-being are not compromised further. The case was adjourned for further monitoring of compliance with the directions.