Back
Slams UP Police Half Encounter Practice Orders Probe
The has taken an increasingly firm stance against what it describes as a deeply entrenched “” within the , issuing a series of orders that systematically expose and dismantle surrounding . In two landmark decisions delivered in — and —the Court not only prescribed stringent procedural safeguards for encounters resulting in but also ordered a investigation into what it found to be a fabricated encounter story. The Court’s observations signal a decisive against the practice of “” or “,” where accused persons are deliberately shot in the legs to incapacitate them, a tactic the Court views as an .
The Pattern: A Rising Tide of Judicial Scrutiny
The High Court’s concerns are rooted in a recurring pattern: whenever the police apprehend a suspect, a parallel FIR is registered alleging that the accused opened indiscriminate fire at the police team. Invariably, the Court noted, not a single police officer is injured, while the accused is shot precisely in the knee or below it. In Chotkau , a bench led by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed starkly: “The Court is observing day in and day out that whenever the police apprehend a person, it often gives rise to another FIR alleging that when the accused was apprehended, he indulged into indiscriminate firing against the police team. Normally, not even a pellet touches even the uniform of any police person and all of them escape unhurt. The police fires one shot and it hits the accused on his knee or below it.”
This observation echoes an earlier finding in Raju , where Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal remarked that police officers, driven by the desire for , appreciation from superiors, or social media fame, unnecessarily use firearms to cause injuries to the leg just below the knee. The Court declared unequivocally: “Such act is not permissible in the eyes of law because the power of punishment to accused is within the domain of judiciary and not in the domain of police.”
Legal Framework: The and Their Enforcement
The legal backdrop to these rulings is the Supreme Court’s judgment in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (), which laid down a comprehensive set of safeguards for and, by extension, for encounters resulting in . These safeguards include mandatory registration of an FIR, independent investigation by an officer at least one rank above the head of the police party, medical treatment for the injured, recording of the injured person’s statement by a Magistrate or Medical Officer, preservation of evidence, and a bar on immediate or .
In Raju , the stressed that these directions, binding under , cannot be made subject to the convenience of the police department. The Court found that despite the issuance of DGP guidelines in and , police officials were routinely failing to comply. In one connected case, Inspector Santosh Kumar Singh admitted that no FIR had even been registered in connection with the encounter and no investigation had been conducted. The Court termed such non-compliance “indeed surprising” and proceeded to prescribe a specific six-point procedure that must be followed in every case of caused during an encounter:
- An FIR must be registered.
- The investigation must be handed over to the or another police station under a senior officer.
- The injured person must receive medical treatment and have his statement recorded by a Magistrate or Medical Officer.
- The investigation must be completed and submitted to the competent court.
- Immediate out-of-turn rewards must not be given.
- The victim’s family may approach the Sessions Judge if the prescribed procedure is not followed or impartiality is in doubt.
Crucially, the Court warned that liability for failing to follow these directions may extend beyond the officer leading the encounter. The District Police Chief—whether SP, SSP, or Commissioner of Police—could face apart from departmental action.
Chotkau: When the Encounter Story Unravels
The order in Chotkau represents perhaps the most detailed judicial dismantling of a police encounter narrative. The case arose from an alleged encounter in Shravasti, where police claimed that 13 personnel were pursuing the accused in a single government vehicle, later joined by a 10-member SWAT team, totaling 23 officers. The FIR stated that the 13 personnel split into three teams and took positions near a bridge. Justice Vidyarthi found this account , remarking that “it was not permissible to carry 13 persons in a jeep, SUV or MUV. This narration of 13 persons sitting in one vehicle appears to be false and it could only be true if half of them were sitting on the roof top of the vehicle.”
The police further claimed that the accused arrived on an e-rickshaw, collided with a tree, and then fled on foot—yet 23 officers, including 10 SWAT commandos, could not stop him. The Court observed dryly: “10 member of SWAT and the 13 members of the three police teams could not stop a person moving on an e-rickshaw, which is also unbelievable, unless all of them are thoroughly incompetent.”
The SHO then testified that he fired two rounds at the accused from approximately 15 meters on a moonlit night, after hearing the sound of a weapon being loaded. The Court recorded “serious apprehensions regarding the correctness of the narration” and questioned whether the SHO could have accurately aimed and fired under those conditions. It further noted that the initial investigation was conducted by a Sub-Inspector subordinate to the SHO who had lodged the FIR, and the charge sheet was ultimately submitted by the same SHO—a clear violation of the independence required under the .
Compounding these irregularities, the Court discovered that all 23 police personnel involved had been rewarded for “good work,” which included obtaining a confession from the accused regarding an offence for which he had already been acquitted by the Supreme Court. Justice Vidyarthi observed: “The apparent cause of annoyance of the police against the revisionist may be the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the prosecution in the judgment… acquitting the revisionist in the earlier matter.” The Court therefore directed the to investigate not only the encounter FIR but also to assess the shooting capability of the SHO.
Broader Implications: and Police Accountability
The ’s orders have significant implications for police accountability and the rule of law in Uttar Pradesh. By insisting that encounters cannot place the police outside the criminal justice system, the Court is reinforcing the —the executive cannot punish, that is the judiciary’s role. The Court’s willingness to order a inquiry into an encounter FIR sends a strong signal that will no longer be accepted at face value.
The orders also highlight the tension between public demand for swift retributive justice and the of the accused. As the Court noted, media scrutiny and public outrage can transform an accused into a villain long before a trial, and an encounter killing may be celebrated as . But the Court reminded that “. and a cannot become a criminal trial.”
Meanwhile, the , when a related matter concerning in Uttar Pradesh was mentioned for early listing on , declined to treat the request as urgent, with Chief Justice Surya Kant stating simply, “No urgency.” This juxtaposition of judicial responses underscores the evolving dynamics of encounter-related jurisprudence in the country.
Conclusion
The ’s rulings in Raju and Chotkau mark a significant judicial intervention in policing practices that have long operated in a grey area. By prescribing enforceable procedures, threatening contempt for senior officers, and ordering independent investigations, the Court is asserting that encounters are not a . As the Court itself put it, an encounter is not the point at which the law stops; it is the point at which . These orders will likely serve as a template for courts across India grappling with similar issues and may compel legislative and executive action to bring police encounters under stricter .
