Hard To Accept Cops Couldn't Overpower Accused, "Shoot-Out" Could Be Avoided: Bombay HC While Hearing Badlapur 'Fake Encounter' Case

While hearing a plea by father of the Badlapur school sexual assault accused who died in an alleged "fake encounter" on Monday, the Bombay High Court orally said it is difficult to accept that the accused– who was not a "strong man", couldn't be overpowered by the police officials who were with him.A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan was hearing the petitioner father's plea who has among various reliefs sought an investigation into the matter as well as registration of FIR against the erring police officials.During the hearing, the bench orally noted some lacunae in the initial probe by the Crime Branch, Thane Police and raised several questions regarding the probe, especially the forensic evidence at the site.The bench orally noted that the police official who allegedly shot at the accused cannot say that he did not know how to react, considering he was an Assistant Police Inspector.Justice Chavan, orally remarked, "So he (API) cannot say that he doesn't know how to react. He (API) must have the knowledge where to fire...The moment he pulled the first trigger the other cops in the vehicle could have easily overpowered him. He (deceased) wasn't a huge built up or strong man. This is very difficult to accept. This cannot be termed as an encounter". The court further stressed on the need of an "impartial probe" adding that while it was not doubting the police, however it wanted to get to the truth. It asked the police to "come clean so that there are no inferences drawn by the people." The deceased had been booked in a POCSO case for allegedly sexually assaulting two minor kindergarten girls in a school at Badlapur in Thane. Court asks questions on timeline, post mortem report, fingerprintsMeanwhile appearing for the State, Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar during the hearing said that the State CID was also probing the incident. "Two FIRs one is u/s 307 and one is an Accidental Death Report (ADR). Both are being probed by the CID," Venegavkar said. At this stage Justice Mohite-Dere asked Venegavkar about the timeline, noting that there was "nothing confidential" about it. On the court's query regarding the spot where the alleged incident took place and if it was isolated or not, Venegavkar said that the left side of the spot has a small town and it is surrounded by hills on the right side. He further said that the moment the incident took place both the deceased and the injured cop were shifted to Shivaji Hospital near Kalwa which was the closest hospital approximately 25 minutes away. The bench, thereafter, queried about the time when the body was sent for post-mortem, whether it was video graphed, the cause of death and about the injuries to the deceased and the to officer. To this Venegavkar said, "Body sent at 8 AM to JJ Hospital. Autopsy was video-graphed. Cause of death was bleeding. Bullet pierced one side of the head and exited from the other. Injury to the officer is also a pierced one". At this stage Justice Chavan enquired about the forensic probe, the weapon in question, whether it was loaded or not and whether the accused knew how to load the same. Venegavkar responded that there was a "scuffle" wherein the magazine came out, the weapon got loaded and was ready for shooting. To this Justice Chavan orally said, "Mr Venegavkar this is hard to believe like this. Prima facie this cannot be trusted. A layman cannot fire a pistol unlike a revolver which any tom, dick and harry can do. A weak man cannot load the pistol as it needs strength. Have you ever used a pistol? I have used it 100 times so I know this. Why to be so negligent and casual when you are escorting a man, who is accused of serious offences? What is the SOP? Was he handcuffed?"Venegavkar said that the accused was initially handcuffed but when he asked for water he was unshackled. The court asked whether finger prints from the weapon–a pistol were taken, to which Venegavkar said that finger prints were done by the FSL.Did Officers Not Know Where To Fire For Self DefenceAt this stage the court orally asked, "You said the accused fired three bullets towards the police. Only one hit the cop what about the other 2? Ordinarily, for self defence we fire at the legs. Where would one usually fire for self defence? May be on the hand or the leg". To this Venegavkar said that the officer concerned did not think of this and he "just reacted". To this the court orally asked if "one of the officers" were involved in any other encounter. Justice Chavan orally said, "Ask the officer about it. How can we believe that 4 officers present in the vehicle couldn't overpower a single man?" However Venegavkar said that it was an on the spot reaction. The court further orally asked if the incident could have been avoided adding that the police are "trained". Perusing through the medical documents of the injured cop, the court asked if his "handwash" had been taken, asking the State to take the "Handwash of all the ...

Hard To Accept Cops Couldn't Overpower Accused, "Shoot-Out" Could Be Avoided: Bombay HC While Hearing Badlapur 'Fake Encounter' Case

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

Hard To Accept Cops Couldn't Overpower Accused, "Shoot-Out" Could Be Avoided: Bombay HC While Hearing Badlapur 'Fake Encounter' Case

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers