Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE Original petitioner, namely, Satwant Singh Manak, was a Constable in the Punjab Police. On facing certain disciplinary proceedings, he claims to have had a change of heart and seeks to portray what he claims are police excesses in the form of fake encounters to which he claims to have been an eye witness.

FACTS

2. The writ petition has originally been framed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 i.e. Director General of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, to register 10 separate F.I.Rs. regarding 10 murders stated to have been caused from time to time by respondents No. 3 to 9, who are former or serving officers of the police force of Punjab and further praying that the family of the deceased may be awarded compensation of ` 2,00,000/- each. The averments in this behalf in the writ petitions are material. The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Punjab Police and claims to have been allotted black-cat duty. The petitioner claims that as per the instructions of his superiors he went to the groups of terrorists and collected their information and many terrorists wanted by the police had been captured by the petitioner with the help of black-cats of LPA No. 153 of 2008 & connected appeals Punjab Police. Respondents No. 3 to 9 are alleged to have physically and mentally tortured these persons and later on murdered them in C.I.A. Staff Moga, Police Station City Moga, Police Station Mehna etc. in separate incidents and some of the deceased were shown to have been killed in false police encounters in records for which even Commendation Certificates were issued by D.I.G./respondent No.2 including to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was, however, arrested on 12.04.1993 in the evening at C.I.A. Staff Moga. A member of Parliament from Bhatinda, is stated to have intervened on behalf of the petitioner as also the relative of the petitioner but later on the petitioner was arrested in three cases i.e. in false police encounters having arms without licences and others and later on the department served a notice to the petitioner alleging absence from duty from 21.06.1992. The petitioner claims that he alongwith other police officers on 25.07.1992 carried out a raid in which terrorist Lakhwinder Singh Lakha was arrested while other terrorists escaped. However, later on Lakhwinder Singh Lakha was shown to be arrested and encountered in the vicinity of Police Station Sadak and a Czechoslovakia made gun was alleged to have been recovered from his possession. The petitioner claims that he had played an important role in the arrest of Lakhwinder Singh Lakha but no award or promotion was awarded to him. Some other similarly situated police officials were also not granted award or promotion etc. Superintendent of Police (Operation)-respondent No. 7 is stated to have handed over a letter dated 12.04.1993 regarding anti-terrorist duty of the petitioner for which the petitioner demanded funds for going to Nanital for collecting information, but respondent No. 7 informed that there was no source of funds and directed the petitioner to raid the house of Zora Singh under Police Station Mehna to take custody of Poppy-husk and after the sale LPA No. 153 of 2008 & connected appeals of the same may go to Nanital. The petitioner states that he did so but later on Zora Singh complained against the petitioner before respondents No. 14 and 3. It is stated that the petitioner was involved by Zora Singh and a conspiracy was hatched to implicate the petitioner in false cases and the petitioner infact was arrested. The petitioner claims to have gone through torture. The allegations stated to have been leveled against the petitioner were that he had committed robbery etc. and the police while keeping the petitioner in illegal custody implicated him in false police encounter case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and another case under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 as also case under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code.

"24. That it is pertinent to mention here that all the ten deceased mentioned supra were physically tortured and murdered by the above said police officers in presence of the petitioner from time to time in various Police Stations and C.I.A. Staff but all the above said police officers for getting promotion in the Department and cash awards from the Police Department committed the murders and some of them deceased were shown killed in police encounters at different places in police nakas whereas no real police encounter took place of the deceased with the Punjab Police parties.

27. Section 157 (1) requires the officer-in-charge of the police station to apply his mind to the information received and the surrounding circumstances to find out whether there is reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate. He cannot mechanically accept the information received. When the information received indicates that death was caused in the encounter as a result of the firing by the Police, prima facie the ingredients of Section 299 IPC which defines culpable homicides, are satisfied. This is sufficient to suspect that an offence of culpable homicide has been committed. Thus, Section 157 of the Code is attracted calling for investigation. Any plea like causing of the death in the case does not constitute an offence either because it was done in exercise of the right of private defence or in exercise of the powers of arrest conferred by Section 46 of the Code, can be accepted only after investigating into the facts and circumstances. Section 100 of IPC provides that right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death if occasion for exercise of the right falls in anyone of the six categories enumerated in that Section Whether the case falls under anyone of the six categories, can only be ascertained by proper investigation. Similarly, when Section 46 (3) of the Code is invoked, it has to be ascertained as to whether the death of the deceased occurred when he forcibly resisted the endeavour of the Police to arrest him and whether the deceased was accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Without proper investigation, the Police officer cannot say that the causing of the death in the encounter was not an offence either because it was done in exercise of the right of private defence or was done in legitimate exercise of the power conferred by Sec. 46 of the Code. One of the deceased persons in these cases was not at all connected with any criminal case. LPA No. 153 of 2008 & connected appeals Hence, Section 46 could not be invoked in that case. Section 174 of the Code says that when the Police officer in charge of the Police station receives information that a person has been killed by another, he shall make an investigation about the apparent cause of death and submit a report to the District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate and also to take steps to arrange for the autopsy of the body. These provisions indicate that unnatural death has to be taken note of seriously by the Police and required them to find out by investigation the real cause of death. The responsibility is greater when it is the Police that are the cause of unnatural death. There is also a general feeling that most of the encounters are fake. It is, therefore, in public interest that the conduct of the Police involved is subjected to proper scrutiny by investigation. To avoid the possibility of bias, the investigation in such cases should be entrusted to an independent agency like the State CID by a general order of the Government. We are, therefore, of the opinion that when information is received in the Police Station about the causing of the death by the Police officer in an encounter, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station, must, after recording that information, draw the inference that there is reason to suspect the commission of an offence and proceed to investigate the same as required by Section 157 of the Code. If such a procedure is not required to be followed, it would give licence to the Police to kill with impunity any citizen in the name of an encounter by just stating that he acted in 'the right of private defence or under Section 46 of the Code. A procedure which brings about such unjust, unfair and unreasonable consequences cannot be countenanced as being within Article 21 of the Constitution.