No Instant Rewards For UP Cops; Mandatory FIR & Medical Aid For Injured: Allahabad High Court Tightens Noose On 'Encounter Culture'

In its 11-page order, the Court has also made it mandatory to register a separate FIR regarding the encounter incident and ensure immediate medical aid for the injured victim. The recording of the statement of the injured by a Magistrate or Medical Officer has also been made mandatory.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal has issued the following 6-point mandatory Guidelines, which effectively stress upon the Supreme Court's 2016 guidelines issued in the case of PUCL vs State of Maharashtra:

1. In case of a police encounter resulting in grievous injury to an accused or any other person, 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, the names of the members of the police party involved need not be included
   in the category of accused/suspect initially; only the team name (whether STF or regular police) may be mentioned.
3. The injured criminal/victim should be provided medical aid. Crucially, their injury should be examined and thereafter their statement should be recorded either by the Magistrate or Medical Officer with a certificate of fitness.
4. After a complete investigation into the encounter incident, a report should be sent to the competent court, which will follow the procedure prescribed in the
   PUCL judgment.
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 rewards are given or recommended only when the gallantry reward of a person is established beyond doubt by a committee constituted by the police head.
6. If the family of the injured finds that the above procedure has not been followed, or that there is a lack of independent investigation, or a pattern of abuse, they may lodge a complaint with the
   Sessions Judge having territorial jurisdiction. The Sessions Judge shall look into the merit of the complaint and redress the grievance.

Additionally, the Court has directed that in case, it is found that police officer in any district has not followed abovementioned guidelines of the PUCL's case regarding police encounter where death or grievous injury occurred, not only the persons who was leading the police team involved in police encounter but District Police Chief whether SP/SSP/Commissionerate Police would be liable for contempt of court apart from disciplinary proceedings instituted by the police department.

"…if any person is aggrieved by non-action regarding death or grievous injuries in police encounter, then he can file an application before the Sessions Judge. Therefore, Sessions Judge may take action on complaint and in appropriate cases may refer the matter to the High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against District Police Chief where flagrant violation has been reported regarding the aforesaid guidelines of PUCL's case (supra) for police encounter", the Court has further provided.

Apart from the above-mentioned directions, the Court strongly rebuked the Uttar Pradesh Police's modus operandi of 'Half Encounters', often colloquially referred to as 'Half-Encounters', 'Operation Langda', or 'Half-Fry', where an accused is shot in the leg to incapacitate him rather than killing him.

Taking note of this disturbing trend, the bench remarked thus:

"This Court came across in several cases which prima facie shows that some police officers, who are part of police team involved in police encounter, just to get out of turn promotion or appreciation from the higher authority or to get fame in social media unnecessarily used fire arm and caused fire arm injury on the leg of the accused just below the knee".

Terming such acts as unlawful, the Bench further remarked thus:

"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 Court further added that in the garb of appreciation or for other extraneous purposes, police officers cannot be allowed to usurp the function of the judiciary to punish a criminal by unnecessary firing and causing injuries, even if directed at a non-vital part of the body.

"…the protection of human life and dignity is not only the object of the Constitution of India but also universal principles accepted by the international community which cannot be allowed to be taken away at the whims and fancies of certain officers of law enforcement agency", the Court further stressed.

The observations came as the Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused who had sustained grievous injuries in a police encounter.

The Court noted 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".

Advocate Kusum Mishra appeared for the accused-bail applicant.

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