UP Cops Resort To 'Half Encounters' To Get Fame, Appreciation: High Court Warns SP/SSPs Of Contempt If SC's Guidelines Violated

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Deshwal also clarified that the District Police Chiefs, including Superintendents of Police (SP), Senior Superintendents of Police (SSP) and Commissioners, would be personally liable for Contempt of Court action if the Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of PUCL vs State Of Maharashtra regarding encounters are not strictly followed within their jurisdiction.

For context, in PUCL case, the Apex Court had issued important Guidelines in the matters of investigating police encounters as the standard procedure for thorough, effective and independent investigation.

Interestingly, in a stinging rebuke of the Uttar Pradesh Police's modus operandi of 'Half-Encounters', the single judge also noted that it has came across several cases where police officers, just to get out of turn promotion or appreciation from the higher authority or to get fame in social media “unnecessarily use fire arm and caused fire arm injury on the leg of the accused just below the knee”.

"Such act is not permissible in the eyes of law as the power of punishment to accused is within the domain of judiciary and not in the domain of police. India is a democratic country. It has to be run as per the ethos and directions of the Constitution of India which clearly distinguishes role of legislature, executive and judiciary", the bench remarked.

It added that in the garb of appreciation or for other extraneous purposes, police officers cannot be allowed to take the function of the judiciary to punish a criminal by unnecessary firing and causing injuries even to a non-vital part.

For context, in the State of UP a 'Half Encounter' by police (often colloquially referred to as 'Operation Langda' or 'Half-Fry') refers to an engagement where an accused/criminal is shot in the leg so as to incapacitate him rather than killing him.

The order was passed as the Court allowed a bail application file by an accused who had sustained grievous injuries in a police encounter.

The Court observed that, despite the "law of the land" established by the Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014), police in Uttar Pradesh frequently ignored mandatory procedures.

The Court highlighted that, in the present case and several related matters, no police officer had sustained any injury, which called into question the "necessity and proportionality of the use of firearms".

Stressing the Supreme Court's PUCL guidelines, the bench issued the following guidelines for the police officials to strictly follow:

1. If in pursuance to any information, police party reached at the spot and encounter takes place wherein fire arm is used by the police party and as a result accused or any other person received grievous injury then an FIR to that effect shall be registered by the head of the police party involved in the police encounter in the same police station or adjoining police station but investigation of said FIR shall be conducted by CBCID or police team of any other police station under the supervision of senior police officer at least one level above the head of police party engaged in the police encounter.
2. In the FIR, name of the members of police party involved in encounter is not required to be mentioned in the category of accused/suspect but only the team whether STF or regular police could be mentioned.
3. Injured criminal/victim should be provided medical aid and his/her injury should be examined and thereafter his/her statement should be recorded either by the Magistrate or Medical Officer with certificate of fitness of injured.
4. After complete investigation into incident of police encounter, report should be sent to the competent court who will follow the procedure as mentioned in the judgement given by the Apex Court in PUCL's case (supra).
5. Out of turn promotion or gallantry award shall not be given to the officer of the police party soon after occurrence of police encounter. It must be ensured that such reward are given or recommended only when gallantry reward of person is established beyond doubt by a committee constituted by the police head.
6. If the family of the injured in police encounter finds that the above procedure has not been followed or there exists lack of independent investigation or pattern of abuse or impartiality by any of the functionaries then he may make a complaint to the Sessions Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place of incident of police encounter. Upon receiving the said complaint, the concerned Sessions Judge shall look into the merit of the complaint and redress the grievance raised therein.

The Court has also provided that if any person is aggrieved by non-action regarding death or grievous injuries in a police encounter, then he can file an application before the Sessions Judge.

It added that the Sessions Judge may take action on a complaint and, in appropriate cases, may refer the matter to the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the District Police Chief where a flagrant violation of the guidelines in PUCL's case on police encounters has been reported.