Bombay High Court
People'S Union For Civil Liberties And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 December, 1997
Author: A.P. Shah
Bench: Ajit P. Shah, J.A. Patil
JUDGMENT A.P. Shah, J.
1. These writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution have been filed by two non-political organisations namely, People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR) and the President of the Samajwadi Party for issuance of appropriate directions instituting a judicial inquiry into the deaths occurred in alleged police encoutners which have taken place in Mumbai in recent times, and to further direct the State Government to take action against the erring police officers. In Writ Petition No. 1032 of 1997 filed by the President of Samajwadi Party, an inquiry is specifically sought in the death of one Abu Sayma alias Javed who was killed in a police encounter on 28th August, 1997. A direction for awarding compensation to the members of the family of the deceased is also prayed for.
2. The petitioners say that during the last couple of years various incidents have taken place which are described as "encounters" by the police authorities. According to the petitioners, they are not genuine encounters but execution by police authorities without following the due process of law. The petitioners say that the story given by the police invariably says that the police received a "tip-off" that so and so dreaded criminal would come to a specific place for some work of his own, and the police laid a trap. As expected, the criminal arrived at the scene and the police called him by name and asked him to surrender. But he did not surrender. On the contrary, he opened fire. The story also adds, monotonously and invariably, that the so-called criminal had one of the most modern and lethal weapons such as AK-56, and he opened fire on the police. The story continues that the police had only indigeneously made weapons which could not match the weapon of the criminal. But still, the police did not suffer any casualties whereas the so-called dreaded criminal died on the spot. The petitioners say that there is reason to believe that most of the encounters are fake and stage managed and indeed there was no encounter. The police picked up certain people who, they probably thought, were criminals and shot them dead in coldblood. It is possible that some of the persons who were shot dead were criminals while some others were innocent. In particular, the petitioners have highlighted the case of Abu Sayma alias Javed in order to show that an innocent youth became victim of the encounter stage managed by the police.
3. The petitioners say that there have been several incidents, in the city of Mumbai in which criminals have assassinated several people such as builders, industrialists and persons connected with film industry. They also allege that many of the prominent criminals who hatch such conspiracies and get them executed are out of the reach of the police. In order to overcome the embarrassment and to control damage to its reputation, the State and the police have resorted to extra-judicial methods and they pick up mostly petty criminals who may or may not be connected with the specific incidents of murder referred to and kill them in cold blood, which helps the police to convince the general public that the law and order machinery of the State has not broken down and it is successful in counteracting and controlling the criminal activities in the city. The petitioners have alleged that there is a general pattern in all the reports which have appeared in the newspapers and the reports appear to be the stories given by the police themselves and reproduced by the media. The petitioners point out a news paper report appeared in the Bombay Times on 8th Oct. 1997 quoting the Deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister of Maharashtra Shri Gopinath Munde stating that encounter would continue. The petitioners submit that these encounters are fake encounters. The petitioners submit that in every encounter in which the criminal sought to be arrested dies, and all that the police says that the criminal killed tried to assault the police officer and the police fired from the revolver and that the victim was declared dead at the hospital. The petitioners submit that all the persons who were fired upon by the police are not hit below the naval part or other part of the body. The petitioners submit that no person survives before he is taken to hospital. The petitioners submit that the alleged encounters have grossly violated the right of life guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners, therefore, submit that it is necessary to direct and independent inquiry into these incidents either by the Central Bureau of Investigation or by a Judicial Officer named by this Court.
4. As far as Writ Petition No. 1032 of 1997 is concerned, the main prayer made by the petitioners is for an inquiry into an incident wherein a young person by name Abu Sayma alias Javed was killed in an encounter on 28th August, 1997. According to the petitioners, Abu Sayama who knew carpentry work, used to sell peanuts outside Bandra railway station (West), Mumbai and used to place his cart near letter boxes in front of main portico of railway station. He used to earn Rs. 60 to 70 per day by hawking between 3 p.m. and 11 p.m. and at other times he used to do sundry carpentry work if and when he got work. It is the case of the petitioners that on 26th August, 1997 at about 2 p.m. Abu Sayma alias Javed was whisked away by armed policemen from the Crime Branch in an autorickshaw and thereafter he died in an alleged encounter at midnight between 27th and 28th of August, 1997 at Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The petitioners have relied upon the affidavits of one John Fernandes, Anwar Khan, Ahmed Khan and Khurshid Adam in order to show that Abu Sayma alias Javed was forcibly taken away by the police on 26th August, 1997. The petitioners have filed affidavit of one Nannu Machhan Khan, who happens to be a hawker selling sleepers outside Bandra railway station. He has stated in his affidavit that Abu Sayma alias Javed used to sell peanuts in the same location near him.
5. The petitioners have also relied upon the affidavit of Rubina w/o Syed Javed Syed Samin, the sister of the deceased Abu Sayma alias Javed. She has stated in her affidavit that after learning that her brother was whisked away by the police, she immediately rushed to Bandra police station but could not meet her brother. Then she moved from one to another police station from Bandra to Kandivli but without any information or trace of her brother. On the next day also she went in search of her brother from place to place, police stations and chowkies but in vain. On 28th August, 1997 she lodged a complaint at Bandra police station which was treated as Missing Complaint No. 48 of 1997, dated 28th August, 1997. She has further stated that on 1st Sept. 1997 she learnt that some persons were arrested and were likely to be produced at Esplanade Court, Mumbai and that her brother could be one amongst them. She immediately rushed to the Esplanade Court. However, she found that one Javed who was produced before the learned Magistrate on that day was not her brother but another person by name Javed Kalya who, according to her was also known as Javed Favada. Then she was directed to go to Palton road police station to enquire about her brother. Accordingly she went to Palton road police station but there was no trace of her brother. Then she went to nearby CID office where she was told that if only she accepted that she was the sister of Javed Favada, she would be able to see her brother. She was then taken to J.J. morgue and asked to identify the body of her brother. She has alleged that the police took her signature on a writing wherein the name of the deceased is shown as Javed Favada. She has stated that her brother was never known as Javed Favada. In short, the petitioners' case is that the alleged encounter which took place at Ballard Pier wherein Abu Sayma was killed was a fake encounter and that the police had killed a wrong person who was only a petty hawker.
6. In response to the notice, the respondents have filed various affidavits. Commissioner of Police Mr. Ronald Mendonca has filed affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners and submitted that there has not been any violation of Art. 21 during the incidents referred to by the petitioners. The Commissioner has stated that from January, 1997 till date, there were in all 47 incidents wherein the police had to use firearms to defend themselves from the attacks on them with firearms by hardened criminals during their attempt to arrest the said accused persons who were known gangsters/desperados and almost all of them were accused of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life and who wanted to evade and resist their arrest. There were 70 deaths and two criminals were injured in these 47 incidents. (During 1996, there were 43 encounters resulting in deaths of 57 alleged criminals). All the deceased persons had criminal records ranging from murder, attempted murder, dacoities to extortion, etc. Almost all of them were found with deadly weapons like firearms including, in some cases, imported, sophisticated firearms. The Commissioner has stated that there is no practice of encounters/combats, as alleged by the petitioners. It is a situation which is forced upon the policemen who have arrived only to perform their lawful duty i.e. to arrest a wanted criminal. It is the criminal, who precipiated a situation where the police officer had no choice but to use force firstly to discharge his lawful duties and second in the exercise of the right of private defence. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 46 of the Cr.P.C. and the Bombay Police Manual. It is also stated that the provisions contained in Section 100 of IPC would justify the officer in causing death if in resisting the arrest the criminal poses a threat to the life of the officer or his association or the people in the vicinity.
7. Mr. Menonca further avers that a particular criminal's reputation for violence would generate a belief in the mind of the police officer of an impending attack by the gangester on his person. In most circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect police officers exercising the right of private defence to act with calmness and deliberation when dealing with criminals of dangerous disposition. When confronted by a dreaded gangster, an ordinary citizen will not dare to challenge him. But a police officer is duty bound to tackle the desperado. If he does not do so, he can be charged with cowardice. It is stated that if these protection and immunties were not afforded, the society will not get any one to enforce law. There will be very few who would like to decide on the spot to overcome a situation if they were to be held answerable later on. Such a situation will bestow legitimacy to possible cowardice which is loathe to police functioning. It is, therefore, stated that the decision taken on the spot by an enforcement officer is not justiciable unless it is wide off the mark. Reliance is placed on Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act which provides that suits or prosecutions in respect of acts done under colour of duty not to be entertained if instituted more than six months after the date of the alleged act and, therefore, it is contended that incidents prior to six months cannot be a subject matter of scrutiny or examination.
8. With regard to the incident of death of Abu Sayma alias Javed Talib Shaikh, it is stated in the affidavit of API Vasant Dhoble that one Javed Talib Shaikh was known in criminal circles because of his protruding teeth as Javed Favada and was a known criminal and gangster in Mumbai who had affiliation with dreaded criminal Abu Salem, a trusted lieutenant of Dawood Ibrahim. It is stated that Javed Favada was wanted in three cases for offences like murder and other serious offences. It is also pointed out that he was also arrested in Shivaji Park police station C.R. No. 339/96 under Section 307, 34, IPC. It is stated by Mr. Dhoble that on 27th August, 1997 information was received by Crime Intelligence Unit (CIU) DCR-CID that Javed Favada was likely to visit along with his associates for some criminal activities near Ballard Pier area on the intervening night of 27th and 28th of August, 1997. Pursuant to this information, officers and men of CIU, DCB-CID kept close secret watch in the said area for the purpose of effecting arrest of the said Javed Favada. At about 00.15 hours a white Maruti car bearing registration No. MH-04-1265 arrived near Exchange Building, Sprott Road, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The said Maruti car was occupied by three persons and one of them got down from the said car. The police personnel immediately found that the said man was of the description of Javed Favada. API Dhoble got himself out and called him by name Javed and said "Bhagna Nahin" (Don't run). The said person in response to the call turned around whipping out a fire arm and fired at the police party. As the said attack by fire arm was very sudden and unexpected and as the police party was already aware of his notorious past, with the instinct of self preservation, Dhoble immediately responded by firing at Javed Favada by his service revolver. During the exchange of fire another round fired by Javed Favada damaged the wind screen of police ambassador car. PSI Bhosle-Patil also fired one round at Javed by his service revolver and Dhoble fired four rounds in all at Javed Favada. In the meantime, the persons sitting in the Maruti car managed to escape. The injured person namely, Javed Favada was immediately removed to St. George Hospital, Mumbai by car but was declared dead before admission. It is stated by Mr. Dhoble that Javed Favada was armed with a foreign made pistol having a "Star" mark. It is stated that an offence was also registered at M.R.A. Marg police station immediately at 1.50 hours on 28th August, 1997 vide C.R. No. 360 of 1997 under Section 307, 34, IPC read with Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act against Javed Favada and his 2 or 3 other associaties. API Dhoble has further stated that when the post-mortem was being conducted, finger prints of the dead body of Javed Favada were taken and that these finger prints tallied with the finger prints of Javed Talib Shaikh, who was arrested by Shivaji Park police station in C.R. No. 339/96 under Section 307, 34, IPC, API Dhoble has, therefore, stated that Javed Favada and Javed Talib Shaikh are one and the same person.
9. Having regard to the importance and gravity of the issue raised in these petitions, we have heard learned counsel extensively. During the course of the arguments Mr. Rane, Mr. Sebastian and Mr. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously submitted that the so called encounters are stage managed by the police in order to liquidate certain persons who, according to the police are criminals. The learned counsel urged that an independent inquiry is necessary in these, incidents of encounter and in any event the Court should order an inquiry in the cases of Abu Sayma alias Javed and another incident wherein two criminals by name Sada Pawale and Vijay Tandel were killed by the police in the alleged encounter. Mr. Manohar, on the other hand submitted that there is no substance in the allegations made by the petitioners. The encounters in question were genuine encounters wherein the police were confronted with dreaded criminals who were armed with deadly weapons and it is only to protect themselves the police were constrained to open fire resulting in the death of those criminals. Mr. Manohar submitted that there is ample material on record to show that Abu Sayma alias Javed was also known as Javed Favada and was a dreaded criminal wanted in many criminal cases. Mr. Manohar urged that the affidavit filed by the witnesses are apparently false and motivated. Mr. Manohar submitted that Sada Pawale and Vijay Tandel were the most dreaded criminals in the city. They were wanted in number of criminal cases. The FIR filed by the police discloses that both were armed with deadly weapons like AK-56 rifle and revolver and they opened fire at the police and when the police opened fire in order to protect themselves, both Sada Pawale and Vijay Tandel received injuries and died. Mr. Manohar submitted that the police have acted bona fide within the four corners of law.
10. We have given our anxious thought to the rival arguments advanced at the Bar. We are of the opinion that a case has been made out for directing a judicial inquiry in the matter of death of Abu Sayma alias Javed and in the deaths of Sada Pawale and Vijay Tandel. In the case of Abu Sayma alias Javed Talib Shaikh, affidavits have been filed to the effect that he was a petty hawker and not a dreaded criminal, as alleged by the police. They are filed by persons residing in the locality stating that Abu Sayma was taken away by the police on 26th August, 1997. There is also an affidavit by the sister claiming that her brother was killed by the police who mistook him as Javed Favada. On the other hand, the police claim that Abu Sayma and Javed Favada were one and the same person and he was killed in police encounter as narrated in the affidavit of API Dhoble. As far as the encounter wherein Sada Pawle and Vijay Tandel were killed by the police is concerned, it is stated in the FIR that the police received information that Sada Pawale, the prime shooter of the Arun Gawli gang was to arrive at Rajawadi junction along with his associates in his fiat car bearing registration No. MH-01-R-1778 and the police, therefore, laid a trap near Rajawadi junction. The FIR then proceeds to state as under :
"After reaching there, in the motor car driven by Asst. R.I. Shri Salaskar and Shri Sawant were occupying the front seat and Desai and Po. Ha. Bhosale were occupying the rear seat. The said vehicle was parked on the Rajawadi road facing M.G. Road. At some distance behind the said vehicle, Mayekar parked another vehicle wherein I was occupying the seat next to him and the rear seat was occupied by the P. C. Arun Jadhav. The rest of the staff was spread out in the said area for keeping watch. While we were on watchout, at about 14.10 hours. Asst. P.I. Shri Salaskar gave a signal and he started the engine of his vehicle and at that very juncture, I saw that the suspected motor car No. MH-01-R-1778 arrived near the junction from Rajawadi road and Asst. P.I. Shri Salaskar drove his vehicle causing an obstacle to the said car and immediately, Avinash Sawant, Hemant Desai and Bhosale alighted from his (Salaskar's) vehicle. In the meantime, our vehicle chased Fiat car and parked our vehicle behind the said car. I myself, Sub-Inspector Mayekar and P. C. Jadhav alighted from the vehicle and during that very period, the driver of the Fiat car alighted from his car and I recognised him to be a notorious gangster Sada Bhimrao Pawale alias Sadamama. At that juncture, Asst. P.I. Salaskar told him that they were then police and asked him to surrender. At that time, he showered bullets from AK-56 rifle in his hand in the direction of Asst. P.I. Shri Salaskar, P.S.I. Avinash Sawant and Hemant Desai. At that time, a person sitting on the next seat in Sadamama Pawale's car alighted and a Pistol was in his right hand and he started fleeing in the direction of Rajawadi. I myself, P.S.I. Mayekar and accompanying staff yelled out at him. "We are police, Stop surrender yourself". At that time, he fired rounds from the pistol in his hand in the direction of me and Mayekar. From out of the bullets he fired, P.S.I. Mayekar was hit by a bullet in his, upper arm. As I myself and the lives of my colleagues were in danger, I fired 8 rounds from my service pistol in self-defence. As well as, P.S.I. Mayekar fired rounds in the direction of the said person. During that very period, even Asst. P.I. Salaskar, P.S.I. Avinash Sawant and Hemant Desai, the police officers, fired rounds in self-defence and as a result thereof, both the aforesaid persons collapsed. The person, who was firing rounds at me and my accompanying staff, was disarmed. In the meantime, P.C. 25901 told me that the said person was a notorious gangster Vijay Tandel. At that time, I saw blood running down the arm of P. C. Jadhav. When asked him, he replied to have been hit by a bullet. Thereafter, I removed and took AK-56 rifle from the hands of the collapsed Sadamama Pawale and along with the weapons, I came to the Tilak Nagar police station for reporting the said incident."
11. With the assistance of learned Advocates for the parties, we have carefully examined the police papers pertaining to the abovesaid cases and some other cases of encounters occurred during this year. We find that in all these cases where the police have alleged that the concerned persons have died in encounters, the alleged criminals were armed with sophisticated weapons but no injury had been caused to any of the police officers who had participated in the operation. Invariably the injuries caused to the deceased are on the vital parts of the body and he is declared dead before admission to the hospital. In no case the firing was made by the police officer with an intention to disable the concerned criminal. At least prima facie we find substance in the allegation of the petitioner that there is a general pattern in these FIRs. We wish to make it clear that this Court is not oblivious to the difficulties faced by the police in tackling with organised crime which has taken root in the society. We are also conscious of the fact that the Mumbai police have to perform a difficult and delicate task, particularly in view of the deteriorating law and order situation and increasing number of underworld and armed gangs and criminals. It is argued that if the Court lays too much emphasis on their fundamental rights and human rights, such criminals may go scot-free without exposing any element or iota of criminality and the crime would go unpunished. Our attention was drawn to incidents of murders of some important and prominent persons in the city in recent times. But all this cannot justify in police resorting to extra judicial methods. As observed by the Supreme Court in D. K. Basu v. State of W.B., , cure cannot be worse than the disease itself. In para 32 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed :
"There can be no gainsaying that freedom of an individual must yield to the security of the State. The right of preventive detention of individuals in the interest of security of the State in various situations prescribed under different statutes has been upheld by the courts. The right to interrogate the detenus, culprits or arrestees in the interest of the nation, must take precedence over an individual's right to personal liberty. The Latin maxim salus populi suprema lex (the safety of the people is the supreme law) and salus repubicae supreme lex (safety of the State is the supreme law) co-exist and are not only important and relevant but lie at the heart of the doctrine that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. The action of the State, however, must be "right, just and fair". Using any form of torture for extracting any kind of information would neither be "right nor just nor fair" and, therefore, would be impermissible, being offensive to Art. 21. Such a crime-suspect must be interrogated indeed subject to sustained and scientific interrogation - determined in accordance with the provisions of law. He cannot, however, be tortured or subjected to third-degree methods or eliminated with a view to elicit information, extract confession or derive knowledge about his accomplices, weapons etc. His constitutional right cannot be abbrdged in the manner permitted by law, though in the very nature of things there would be qualitative difference in the method of interrogation of such a person as compared to an ordinary criminal. Challenges of terrorism must be met with innovative ideas and approach. State terrorism is no answer to combat terrorism. State terrorism would only provide legitimacy to "terrorism". That would be bad for the State, the community and above all for the rule of law. The State must, therefore, ensure that various agencies deployed by it for combating terrorism act within the bounds of law and not become law unto themselves. That the terrorist has violated human rights of innocent citizens may render him liable to punishment but it cannot justify the violation of his human rights except in the manner permitted by law. Need, therefore, is to develop scientific methods of investigation and train the investigators properly to interrogate to meet the challenge."
12. Mr. Manohar strenuously urged that when the lives of many innocent people are at the mercy of the gangsters and the police of the State is making sincere efforts to protect the innocent citizens, if the Court will direct for investigation of the cases concerning the incidents in question, the police will have a feeling of demoralisation and shall have apprehension that even though they act in accordance with law and for the protection of the law-abiding people, they have to face inquiries for finding out the truth or otherwise of their acts and omissions in connection with the alleged occurrence. We fail to see how a law abiding and law enforcing agency shall ever have any apprehensive that a fair and impartial inquiry by a judicial authority to find out the truth or otherwise of those incidents, in any way, cause any prejudice to them or shall bring to their fair name any disrepute. No person in authority who discharges his duties honestly and fairly should ever have any apprehension in placing all that is true about his activities before any other authority. Mr. Manohar also urged that in a similar case the Division Bench comprising of Justices A. C. Agarwal and F. I. Rebello directed an inquiry before the District Magistrate. In our considered opinion, such an inquiry is of no use in the present case since the Government officials at the highest level have taken a stand that these encounters are genuine encounters. It is futile to except an independent and wholly objective investigation by the said authorities. Even otherwise, people will have little confidence in the investigation no matter how honest and objective the investigation be. We, therefore, deem it necessary to order an independent inquiry by a Judicial Officer.
13. In view of the foregoing reasons, we direct the learned Sessions Judge (Principal Judge of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai) to hold an inquiry in the death of (a) Abu Sayma alias Javed Talib Shaikh in police encounter on 28th August, 1997 and also the identity of the deceased Abu Sayma alias Javed Talib Shaikh who is alleged to have been killed on a mistake identity as Javed Favada, and in the deaths of (b) Sada Pawale and Vijay Tandel, killed in encounter on 26th Sept. 1997 and also to find out whether the encounters in which the above persons died were genuine or stage managed encounters. The learned Sessions Judge shall record the evidence of the relevant witnesses and submit a report to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of the writ from this Court. To enable the learned Sessions Judge and to appreciate the facts of the case and also to enable him to identify the witnesses to be summoned, copies of the relevant writ petitions and affidavits along with the enclosed/annexed documents and affidavits shall be forwarded to him. The learned Sessions Judge shall examine the deponents of such affidavits as well as the concerned officers. It is made clear that the petitioners-organisations will be entitled to be heard in the inquiry to be conducted by the learned Sessions Judge. The respondents are directed to file in this Court all the original papers pertaining to the encounter deaths of the aforesaid three persons within two days. The Registrar shall keep these papers in a sealed cover and forward the same to the learned Sessions Judge along with the copy of this judgment and other relevant papers.
Before commencement of the inquiry, the learned Sessions Judge shall send notices to the petitioners as well as the respondents.
It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only prima facie and tentative observations and the learned Sessions Judge shall hold his inquiry unifluenced by the same.
Petitions to be listed on board after receipt of the report from the learned Sessions Judge. Needless to mention that the police shall extend full co-operation to the learned Sessions Judge and make available to him all the documents which, according to the learned Sessions Judge, are necessary for the purpose of holding the inquiry and finding the truth.
14. Petition allowed.