Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Elipe Dharma Rao and Aruna Jagadeesan, JJ.
P. Pugalenthi, Director, Chennai-600001 and Others
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600009 and Others
W.P. No. 4564 of 2012 and Others with M.P. Nos. 1 to 4 of 2012
Decided on : 5 July 2013
M. Radhakrishnan, T.T. Ravichandran, P.R. Dinesh Kumar, K. Pugazhenthi, M. Radhakrishnan for Petitioners
A. Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General assisted by Shanmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor, S.T.S. Moorthy, Special Government Pleader, Ms. A. Srijayanthi, Special Government Pleader, Ananthakrishna, Additional Public Prosecutor, M. Mohamed Riyaz, (Government Advocate-crl.side), D. Vairamoorthy, (Governent Advocate-Crl.Side) and O.R. Maheswaran, (Government Advocate-civil side) P.N. Prakash, R. Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel for K.R. Rameshkumar, M. Deivanandam, Vijayakumar, T.R. Rajaraman, A. Jeenasenan, Chandrasekar, for Respondents
The importance of substantial evidence over hearsay evidence and media reports in evaluating allegations against police personnel, and the validity of the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Encounter - Police Action - Section 392 IPC, Section 395 IPC, Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 3(1) of TN PPDL Act - The court discussed the incidents of two daring daylight bank robberies, the police action in response to the robberies, and the subsequent legal proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of substantial evidence over hearsay evidence and media reports in evaluating the allegations against the police personnel. It also highlighted the validity of the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the compliance with the guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission.
Fact of the Case:
Chennai witnessed two daring daylight bank robberies, leading to police action resulting in the death of the accused persons. The petitioners filed writ petitions as public interest litigations, alleging a fake encounter and seeking legal action against the police officials involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to support the petitioners' contentions and highlighting the validity of the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate and the compliance with the guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission.
Issues: Alleged fake encounter, legality of the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate, compliance with human rights guidelines
Ratio Decidendi: Substantial evidence over hearsay evidence, validity of the enquiry under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, compliance with human rights guidelines
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions, with no costs imposed.
Mr. ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
1. Chennai witnessed two daring daylight bank robberies in a short span of time. First one on 23.1.2012 at about 1.30 p.m. at Bank of Baroda, Perungudi Branch and the second one on 20.2.2012 at around 2 p.m. at Indian Overseas Bank, Keelkattalai Branch. While in the first incident, at gun point, an armed group of four persons decamped with cash of Rs. 19 lakhs, resulting in registration of a case in Cr. No. 72 of 2012 on the file of Thuraipakkam Police Station under Section 392 IPC read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, based on the complaint of the Branch Manager, in the second incident, a five member armed gang decamped with a cash of about Rs. 14 lakhs, resulting in registration of a case in Cr. No. 348 of 2012 on the file of Madipakkam Police Station under Section 395 IPC read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act on the complaint lodged by the senior Manager of the said Bank.
2. While so, according to police, special teams were formed to identify and arrest the culprits involved in the case and in the course of investigation, they have also collected certain video footages, which were identified by the bank employees. While so, on 22.2.2012, on the information furnished by the house owner, the police came to know that the accused identified in the video footage and four other North Indians were staying in a house at Tamil Nadu Housing Board Colony, Velacherry and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madipakkam Range proceeded to the place around 11.15 p.m. on that day and mounted surveillance in the area. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, reached the place. The narration of events by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, in his counter affidavit, as fifth respondent in W.P. No. 4564 of 2012 are extracted hereunder for better understanding:
“On being communicated of the information, I reached the place and after studying the area, planned to proceed with the verification of the identified suspect. I organized a team of 14 officers and police men. Before going to the spot, we planned out various strategies to apprehend and arrest them. I posted the team of officers at the western window of the house and I lead one team to the front door. The time then was around 1.00 a.m. I knocked the door of the house and asked the inmates to open the door. In spite of identifying ourselves as police and asking them to open the door, in Hindi and Tamil, the inmates refused to open the door. They did not even switch on the lights, which was a suspicious conduct. At about that time I heard muttering in Hindi and I also heard the sound of loading and cocking of weapons from inside. I heard sounds of firing on the Western side and also heard them warning us in Hindi. I shouted at them and warned them to stop firing. Undeterred by my warning they continued to fire through the western window, which caused bullet injury to Mr.Christian Jaysil, Inspector of Police (10th Respondent herein). Hence the team on the western side opened fire at them. The area being thickly inhabited one with houses all around, the sound of firing awoke some neighbors. The bullets fired from inside the house were also hitting the walls and balconies of the opposite houses, which posed immediate danger to the life of the innocent neighbors. The inmates opened fire on the southern side which injured Mr. Ravi, Inspector of Police (9th respondent). Thus it became obvious that the inmates were in no mood to surrender but were determined to inflict maximum damage by indiscriminately firing from inside and cause loss of human lives. As danger to the lives of general public and police personnel are real and imminent due to unabated firing from inside the house, I was left with no other option but to break open the front door and return fire. In the course of this action two of the police officers (9th and 10th respondents herein) and the five inmates sustained injuries.
