IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDEABAD
GODA RAGHURAM, V.V.S. RAO, R. SUBHASH REDDY, RAMESH RANGANATHAN and G, BHAVANI PRASAD, JJ.
A.P. Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC), rep. by its President, Mr. S. Subhash Chandra Bose and others – Appellants
Versus
Government of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad, and others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 15419 of 2006; 26358 of 1999; 7906 of 2000; 14475 of 2002; 440 of 2003 and 857 of 2008 -
Decided on 6-2-2009.
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 100 —Right of private defence—Plea about exercise of right of private defence raised by a police officer cannot be presumed and considered at the time of registration of crime—Whether act of firing would fall under right of self-defence is a mixed question of law and fact. (Para 159)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 43 and 46—Arrest— No one should be killed merely to prevent escape—To prevent escape, non-lethal employment of force can be used —While making arrest police is not authorized to cause death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. (Paras 106 and 107)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 154—FIR—When rival versions are put forward by parties in respect of same matter such information can be reduced into two different FIRs—Investigation can be conduced in respect to both such FIRs. (Para 94)
(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 174—Inquest—Encounter deaths—Inquest by Executive Magistrate is not an alternative to recording of information about encounter deaths—Obligation to disclose to Investigating Officer identity of the police officer(s) so involved, is absolute and there is no immunity from this obligation. (Paras 180 and 313)
(F) Judicial Discipline—High Court cannot declare any judgment of Supreme Court as not representing correct legal position. (Para 294)
(Per Goda Raghuram, J.)
Comoetina interoretations of recurrent. contemooraneous events:
Since the inception of the naxalite movement in Andhra Pradesh in 1969, 551 police personnel were killed including one DIG, two S.Ps, five D.S. Ps; 16 Inspectors and 49 Sub-Inspectors. 2928 civilians were killed; public and private property worth hundred of crores of rupees was destroyed; the extremist groups indulged in mindless violence and committed brutal murders. The naxal violence increased since 1991. They deliberately ambush and attack police with sophisticated firearms and explosives. In order to create terror the Maoists are also targeting functionaries of ruling political parties and killing them brutally - (counter affidavit of the Director General of Police in W. P. No. 154191 06 including Annexures 2 and 7)
2. The State Executive for the first time started extra-legal killing which is popularly known as Encounter since 1968 and as on today in the name of alleged encounter the State has snatched away lives of about 4000 people during the last four decades (written submissions dated 4.3.2008 of Mr. V. Raghunath, Advocate for APCLC, in W.P.Nos. 790612000, 14475102 and 440103)
3. The lesson for the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) is thus clear: it should advise state governments that brutal repression is no answer to the Naxalite movement; that the Naxalite ideology must be fought politically; that Naxalite criminal actions must be dealt with under the existing criminal and human rights laws; and that Naxalite social base, which springs from exploitation, inequality and injustice must be countered by purposeful political and administrative action to implement the promises made in the Preamble and the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution. Police repression is attractive and easy to adopt by a government armed to the teeth with paramilitary forces, equipment, firepower and mobility! However, police repression only goes to strengthen the Maoist thesis on the class character of the Indian State. It is counter-productive and helps to increase the mass base of the Naxalites, which arises out of the failure of the State to deliver the developmental goods as mandated by the Constitution - Political Violence and the Police in India'.
4. Steven Pinker observes: The most important and under appreciated trend in the history of our species: is the decline of violence. Cruelty as popular entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery as a labor-saving device, genocide for convenience, torture and mutilation as routine forms of punishment, execution for trivial crimes and misdemeanors, assassination as a means of political succession, pogroms as an outlet for frustration, and homicide as the major means of conflict resolution - all were unexceptional features of life for most of human history. Yet today they are statistically rare in the West, less common elsewhere than they used to be, and widely condemned when they do occur.
5. According to the eminent historian Eric Hobsbawm: The twentieth century was the most murderous in recorded history. The total number of deaths caused by or associated with its wars is estimated at 187 million, the equivalent of more than 10 percent of the world's population in 1913. --At the start of the twenty-first century we find ourselves in a world where armed operations are no longer essentially in the hands of governments or their authorized agents, and where the contending parties have no common characteristics, status or objectives, except the willingness to use violence.
6. State action against terrorism (including the domestic variety), blurs legal, moral and ethical definitions of appropriate substantive and procedural rules of peacetime law enforcement engagement under constitutional norms of governance on the one hand; and war on the other. War is also a species of conflict;
1. K.S. Subramanian: Political Violence and the Police in India pp 139-140 - Sage Publicat
Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of W.B.: AIR 1970 SC 940. (Para 105)
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat: AIR 1964 SC 1563. (Para 146)
Faddi v. State of M.P.: AIR 1964 SC 1850.
Narayanda Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. State of W.B.: AIR 1959 SC 1118. (Para 229)
State of M.P. v. S.B.Johari: (2000) 2 SCC 57.
(1997) 4 SCC 393 = 1997 (2) ALT 9 (DN).
Kishun Singh v. State of Punjab:(1993) 2 SCC 16. (Para 260)
Henry Greer Robinson v. State of South Australia: AIR 1931 PC 254. (Para 282)
The State of U.P. v. Raj Narain and others:(1975) 4 SCC 428. (Para 282)
2006 (2) ALT (Crl.) 106 (SC) = 2006 (3) SCJ 530. (Para 85)
2006 (3) ALT (Crl.) 256 (SC) = 2006 (7) SCJ 867. (Para 85)
2006 (3) ALT (Crl.) 185 (SC) = 2006 (7) SCJ 419. (Para 85)
T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala and others: (2001) 6 SCC 181 = 2001 (5) ALT 3.5 (ON SC).
Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration): (1979) 2 SCC 322. (Para 90)
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash:(2004) 13 SCC 292 = 2005 (1) ALT 2.2 (DN SC).(Para 92)
Seriyal Udayar v. State of Tamil Nadu: (1987) 2 SCC 359. (Para 102)
Nandini Satpathy v. P.LDani and anothers: (1978) 2 SCC 424. (Para 105)
Rishikesh Singh v. State: AIR 1970 All 51.
Vadilal Panchalv. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar and another: AIR 1960 SC 1113. (Para 219)
R.R. Chari v. State of UP.: AIR 1951 SC 207.(Para 229)
R. v. Clegg: (1995) 1 A.C. 482. (Para 168)
2006 (2) ALT (Cr!.) 93 (SC) = 2006 (3) SCJ 466. (Para 179)
(2003) 2 SCC 518 = 2003 (3) ALT 14.1 (ON SC).
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory Delhi
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn.: (1978) 4 SCC 494.
Charles Sobhraj v. Supdt., Central Jail
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy.
Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra: (1978) 3 SCC 544. (Para 192)
Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh: (1989) 2 SCC 132.
M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and another: (1977) 4 SCC 459. (Para 222)
Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd.: (2008) 2 SCC 492.(Para 228)
Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra: (1971) 2 SCC 654. (Para 229)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.