Disturbing Trend Of Increase In Police Encounters Despite Tamil Nadu Being A Better Law Enforcing Agency: Madras HC
|The Madras High Court remarked that, there is a disturbing trend of an increase in the police encounters despite the State of Tamil Nadu being one of the better law-enforcing agencies.
The Madurai Bench remarked thus in a criminal original petition filed for a direction to the Inspector of Police to register an FIR against the police personnel involved in an alleged encounter in 2010.
A Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed, “Before proceeding to the operative portion, it is with anguish, that this Court notices despite the State of Tamil Nadu being one of the better law-enforcing states and the Tamil Nadu Police being one of the better law-enforcing agencies, a disturbing trend of (i) increase in dangerous criminals trying to attack police party and then they are shot dead or injured; and (ii) increase in a strange way of accused trying to escape and falling and fracturing their hands, that is happening.”
The Bench added that the immediate society affected by the particular offense committed by the accused starts applauding such killings without realizing that the same is a fundamental wrong and retrograde thinking.
Advocate Henri Tiphagne appeared for the petitioner while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Veera Kathiravan appeared for the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
As per the petitioner’s case, in the wee hours, six policemen in plain clothes entered her house enquiring about the whereabouts of her son aged 26 years. They took her, daughter, and son-in-law and her grandson in a police vehicle to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch and they were allegedly assaulted and tortured. Later, they took all of them to Thimmapuram Village and kept them in a van in a place called ‘Pirakaraikadu’ and abused and beat them till 10.00 O' clock in the morning. Upon information, her son surrendered himself before the police party and they took him in their custody. After that, all the others, including the petitioner were dropped at the Police Station, after getting their signatures in some papers.
Thereafter, the special police party under the leadership of the Assistant Commissioner allegedly shot and killed her son and another person within the limits of Theppakulam Police Station. Hence, an FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 332, 324, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The petitioner preferred a complaint before the Inspector of Police to file a case under Section 302 of IPC but the same was refused to be received. Since no independent FIR was registered and the procedure as laid down by the National Human Resource Commission and the various guidelines as mandated by the Supreme Court in various decisions were not followed, the petition was filed before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that the factual backgrounds that are mentioned in the instances are stereotypical and the same has to be taken seriously note of and thoroughly investigated because:
(a) it tends to point out the lack of faith of the law enforcing agency in the Rule of Law, Constitutional Rights and Protection, and the Criminal Justice System;
(b) it reminisces the colonial past of the agency that was constituted by the British under the Indian Police Act, 1861 and is an affront on democracy;
(c) the means shall be as legal as the end;
(d) the belief that instant death is an appropriate punishment and it has a deterrent effect are only myths and not the truth.
The Court therefore, directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to depute a higher ranking official to investigate the case.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the final report of the police, and directed the fresh investigation in the case.
Cause Title- A. Guruvammal v. The Commissioner of Police & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:3462)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Henri Tiphagne and D. Geeth.
Respondents: AAG Veera Kathiravan and APP R.M. Anbunithi.