R. M. LODHA, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
People’s Union for Civil Liberties – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
ORDER
R.M. LODHA, CJI.
On 03.09.2014, the arguments were heard on the question of the procedure to be followed in investigating police encounters. The present order is confined to the above question.
2. In the three writ petitions, which were filed by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (for short, “PUCL”) before the Bombay High Court, the issue of genuineness or otherwise of nearly 99 encounters between the Mumbai police and the alleged criminals resulting in death of about 135 persons between 1995 and 1997 was raised. Inter alia, the following prayers were made:
i) directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to furnish the particulars regarding the number of persons killed in last one year in police encounters, their names, addresses, the circumstances in which they were killed, the inquiries, if any, conducted with respect to the said killings and any other relevant information and the action taken, if any, by them;
ii) directing the respondent No. 1 i.e. State of Maharashtra to register offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and other enactments against the police officers found prima-facie responsible for the violations of fundamental rights and other provisions of the Indian P
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal; [(1997) 1 SCC 416]—Relied. [Para 8]
Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home
Chaitanya Kalbagh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.; [(1989) 2 SCC 314]—Relied. [Para 17]
Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home
B.G. Verghese v. Union of India and Ors.; [(2013) 11 SCC 525]—Relied. [Para 22]
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.