( 1 ) PETITIONER in W. P. No. 21264 of 2004 claimed that her son Gera Kishore was killed by police officials after he surrendered to police. It appears that the deceased was shown as an accused in Cr. No. 301 of 2004 of Ongole Tq. Police Station. On 18. 8. 2004 at about 7. 30 p. m. one Garikamukkala giribabu was hacked to death. At about 8. 00 p. m. Deputy Superintendent of Police, ongole came to the house of petitioner and questioned her about the whereabouts of her son. The Deputy Superintendent of Police told her that her son was suspected of having killed Garikamukkala Giribabu. Thereupon the petitioner consulted her daughter and son-in-law and at about 9. 00 p. m. the petitioners daughter and son-in-law took kishore to Ongole Tq. police station. Sub-Inspector of Police, and Circle Inspector of police were in the police station. In the meantime Deputy Superintendent of Police also came there. The petitioners daughter and son-in-law handed over Kishore to police, whereupon the Deputy Superintendent of police promised that he would be taken to court. On the next morning the petitioner was informed by her neighbours who had seen a programme on TV that her son had been killed and police had claimed that he was killed in an encounter. At about 10. 00 a. m. some police men came to her house and asked her to come and identify her sons dead body. She was taken to Maddipadu police station limits where her sons body was laid near a teak plantation. The petitioner was surprised to see the dead body of her son at such a place when he had been handed over to the police on the previous day in the police station. The story that was recorded in the records of police was that while a police team under the leadership of 2nd respondent was searching for Kishore in the early hours of 19. 8. 2004, they saw him near the village of Gajulapalem and he attacked the respondents 2 and 4 with a knife and the 4th respondent- Sub-Inspector of Police opened fire in self defence and killed him. The petitioner filed a complaint stating the facts and specifically mentioned that the respondents 2 and 3 were responsible for the murder of his son. No investigations have been conducted, no statements were recorded, not even the statements of petitioners daughter and son-in-law were recorded who had claimed that they had handed over Kishore to the police. A case was registered in Cr. No. 79 of 2004 under section 324, 307 and 100 of IPC against the deceased. In the light of these facts, the petitioner sought directions from this court that the investigations for a case of murder should be conducted against the respondents 2, 3 and 4 and they should be tried in a court of law.

( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up before a division Bench of this Court, a reference was made to judgment of a Division Bench of this court in W. P. Nos. 26 and 1229 of 2003. Reference was also made to judgments of division Benches of this Court reported in k. G. Kannabiran v. Chief Secretary, and a. Anasuya v. S. H. O. The Court noted that when W. P. Nos. 26 and 1229 of 2003 were decided, other judgments to which reference has been made hereinabove were not brought to its notice. The Court also found that there was cleavage of opinion between the judgments of division benches of the Court referred to above. Therefore the matter was referred to Full Bench. In this way the matter has come before the Full Bench.

( 3 ) THE question is very short, but is important. If there is an encounter and a police man kills a citizen either in an exchange of fire or in self-defence, whether any case has to be registered for causing the death of citizen. The pattern in Andhra Pradesh which we have seen from various FIRs registered after encounter resulting in death is that an fir is registered under Section 307 of IPC against the dead person. The learned advocate General has produced many FIRs which are on file and which show the same pattern that a case is registered under section 307 of IPC