Encounters, custodial killings need thorough probe

THE Uttar Pradesh Police’s Special Task Force (STF) received unprecedented accolades from the public when it killed Asad, son of mafioso-turned-politician Atiq Ahmad and a proclaimed offender in the Umesh Pal murder case. Atiq and his brother Ashraf, who were in police remand in the same case, were killed by three armed criminals when they were being taken to a hospital by the Prayagraj police for a mandatory medical check-up on the night of April 15.

The killing of Atiq and Ashraf in police custody have evoked a variety of reactions. The family members of their victims expressed satisfaction, saying that they paid the price for their sins. The general silence of the people signifies their tacit approval of the killings, perhaps believing that the dreaded criminals met the fate they deserved. Some Opposition leaders perceive the double murder in police custody as a syndrome of lawlessness, which calls for immediate course correction. A few sympathisers of the slain criminals are attributing motives and alleging mala fide intentions on the part of the authorities.

The stakeholders’ varied perception on encounters and killings in police custody is not a surprise. What is worrying is the fact that it is being depicted as a syndrome of lawlessness in a society governed by the ‘rule of law’. Certainly, people cannot be allowed to deliver their own justice. Every such assertion needs to be heard patiently, probed decisively and disposed of soberly by the authorities in their quest to do justice to all.

It is disturbing that encounters and deaths in police custody are generally seen by people with suspicion and disbelief, though a majority of the encounters are genuine. In reply to a question in the Lok Sabha last year, it was stated that 233 deaths in police encounters were reported in two years (from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022).

In every police encounter, an FIR is registered at the behest of the raiding party, explaining the circumstances leading to the exercise of the right of private defence by it, which resulted in the death of the subject. According to the guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the investigation of such cases is immediately transferred from the local police to the crime branch of the CID for fair and impartial proceedings. The NHRC continuously oversees and monitors the investigation; sometimes, the investigation wing of the NHRC conducts an independent parallel inquiry to make sure that the investigation is not botched up. Conviction rate in fake encounter cases is very high.

It is difficult to understand why policemen resort to fake encounters. Criminologists attribute this trigger-happy attitude in some policemen to their desire to earn the ‘Singham’ image, under the false belief that encounters are the zenith of police professionalism; some others suffer from self-righteousness, presuming it their duty to do instant justice to address larger public safety and national security concerns.

At times, a spate of crimes results in pressure from the public and the superior authorities and drives the cops to such a situation where they tend to justify their blatantly illegal actions, on the plea that the dreaded criminals cannot be brought to justice through court proceedings as nobody would dare to depose against them.

Such misguided policemen forget that they are not a law unto themselves; they are merely an instrument of the law. No ground is sufficient to justify a fake encounter and the guilty deserve the maximum penalty. In the false encounter case of liquor smuggler Dara Singh of Rajasthan (2006), the Supreme Court had observed that policemen deserved capital punishment for a fake encounter.

Killing of a person in police custody by criminals is an equally dastardly act; it is a slur on the face of the police as well as an adverse reflection on the quality of governance. The state, through its agencies, is under legal and constitutional obligation to protect every individual; if it fails in this duty, the state loses its legitimacy to rule.

Imparting justice to every person is a sine qua non of the existence and continuation of a political system. British politician Lord Wright asserts, “Justice is what justice appears to a reasonable man.” No prudent man can stand in approval of an extra-judicial killing. It is deplorable that some responsible public figures and even some policemen are trying to underplay the killing of Atiq and Ashraf in police custody, terming it a phenomenon of nature’s justice. When the authorities start contriving to hide behind the veil of nature’s justice, it is the first sign of anarchy, which a civilised society cannot afford.

Being a witness to the killing of two persons in their custody, whatever may be the circumstances, is the worst kind of dereliction of duty by policemen. The security staff and their superiors were required to take extra precautions, keeping in view the vulnerability of Atiq and Ashraf to such an eventuality due to the sense of extreme outrage and public anger against them.

Some people are accusing the escort guards of Atiq and Ashraf of cowardice, arguing that they should have fired at the assailants, exercising their right to private defence. This charge needs to be viewed objectively and examined legally. Video clips suggest that everything happened so quickly that it was over within eight seconds. The killers were so clever that they threw away their weapons immediately after the murder and started shouting ‘surrender…surrender’ to ward off any exercise of the right of private defence against them.

The UP Government has ordered a judicial inquiry to bring out the whole truth in the public domain. It is not known whether the territorial Judicial Magistrate has conducted an inquiry under Section 176 (1A) of the CrPC. The judicial inquiry ordered by the government cannot be a substitute for the inquiry by the territorial Judicial Magistrate.