Criminal Law Responses To Police Encounter Killings
1. Introduction
Police encounter killings refer to situations where law enforcement officers kill a suspect during a confrontation. While the law recognizes that police may use force in self-defense or to prevent a serious crime, extrajudicial killings are illegal and violate constitutional and criminal law provisions.
The primary legal provisions in India governing police encounters are:
Indian Penal Code (IPC): Sections 302 (murder), 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Sections 46, 49, 50, 144, 129 – regulating arrest and use of force.
Constitution of India: Article 21 (Right to Life) – applies to all citizens, including accused persons.
Judicial Guidelines: Cases where the Supreme Court and High Courts have intervened in extrajudicial killings.
2. Legal Principles Governing Police Use of Force
Police can use reasonable and proportionate force to prevent crime or apprehend a dangerous criminal.
Excessive or premeditated killings outside the law are illegal.
The courts have emphasized that even suspects have a right to life under Article 21, and no extra-judicial punishment is permissible.
Courts often examine:
Whether the encounter was genuine or staged.
Whether procedural safeguards (arrest, filing of FIR, investigation) were followed.
If the officer acted in self-defense.
3. Case Law Analysis
Here are some important cases that illustrate how Indian courts have responded to police encounter killings:
(a) People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (1997)
Facts: The PUCL challenged several police encounters in Maharashtra, alleging extrajudicial killings.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that:
Encounters are subject to strict judicial review.
The police cannot take the law into their own hands, even in the case of hardened criminals.
States are required to conduct judicial inquiries into all police killings.
Principle: Legal sanction is required for use of lethal force; unlawful killings violate Article 21.
(b) State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1984)
Facts: The case dealt with police firing during riots and confrontations.
Holding: The Supreme Court held:
Police are allowed to use force proportionate to the threat.
The use of force must be necessary and reasonable, and the circumstances must justify it.
Principle: Legal justification for police killings depends on immediacy and proportionality of the threat.
(c) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts: Primarily a death penalty case, but the Court laid down principles relevant to proportionality in lethal action.
Holding:
Punishment (or use of lethal force) must be a last resort.
Courts emphasized that every life is sacred, and the state cannot act arbitrarily.
Principle: Force used by police must be the least necessary to achieve lawful objective.
(d) Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2008)
Facts: Laxman was killed in an alleged fake encounter. Investigation revealed procedural lapses.
Holding: The Bombay High Court emphasized:
Police must file a First Information Report (FIR) in all custodial deaths.
Judicial inquiry is mandatory to verify the genuineness of police claims.
Principle: Encounters without investigation are illegal; police cannot bypass the criminal justice process.
(e) People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003) – TADA Encounters
Facts: In the context of counter-terror operations, several deaths in alleged encounters were reported.
Holding: Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines:
A judicial magistrate should be informed immediately of any death in police custody.
Post-mortem and independent investigation are mandatory.
Police are prohibited from claiming immunity merely because the person was accused of terrorism.
Principle: Extra-judicial killings are not excused by the nature of the crime; procedural safeguards must be followed.
(f) DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – Custodial Death Guidelines
Facts: Though not a direct encounter case, this case deals with deaths in police custody.
Holding: Supreme Court issued 11 guidelines to prevent arbitrary deaths:
Arrest memo must be prepared in the presence of a witness.
Detainee must be informed of rights.
Medical examination of arrestee is mandatory.
Principle: Preventive safeguards aim to ensure police killings do not occur outside legal procedures.
4. Judicial Trends
Judicial scrutiny: Courts treat encounters with suspicion; verification is required.
No immunity: Police officers are not above the law.
Human rights approach: Right to life under Article 21 is non-derogable.
Compensation and accountability: Courts award compensation to victims’ families if encounters are fake or unlawful.
5. Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Year | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| PUCL v. State of Maharashtra | 1997 | Judicial review of police encounters; extra-judicial killings illegal |
| State of Punjab v. Major Singh | 1984 | Force must be necessary and proportionate |
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab | 1980 | Last resort principle; life is sacred |
| Laxman v. State of Maharashtra | 2008 | FIR and judicial inquiry mandatory for custodial deaths |
| PUCL v. Union of India | 2003 | Guidelines for encounters; post-mortem & judicial oversight |
| DK Basu v. State of West Bengal | 1997 | Custodial safeguards to prevent extrajudicial killings |
6. Conclusion
Police can legally use lethal force only in self-defense or to prevent imminent serious crimes.
Extra-judicial killings are illegal and unconstitutional.
Indian courts have consistently emphasized procedural safeguards, independent investigation, and judicial oversight.
Accountability mechanisms and human rights frameworks are increasingly applied to curb “fake encounters.”
RELATED Blog
comments