Prosecution Of Extrajudicial Killings And “Crossfire” Deaths

11 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) – India

Law Involved: IPC Sections 302 (Murder), 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), Police Misconduct Laws, Fundamental Rights

Facts:

During the 2002 Gujarat riots, Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh’s husband was reportedly killed in what police claimed was an encounter (“crossfire”). Allegations arose that the police staged the encounter to cover up the murder of her husband.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court observed that claims of encounters must be subjected to judicial scrutiny.

Staged encounters are treated as extrajudicial killings and constitute murder under IPC Section 302.

Police cannot escape liability by claiming self-defense without credible evidence.

Significance:

This case highlighted the role of the judiciary in holding law enforcement accountable for alleged crossfire deaths and reinforced that extrajudicial killings are illegal even during communal unrest.

2. Shahid Masood v. State (2011) – Pakistan

Law Involved: Pakistan Penal Code (Murder, Section 302), Supreme Court oversight on police encounters

Facts:

Shahid Masood was killed during an alleged police encounter while accused of armed robbery. Human rights organizations alleged the police had executed an extrajudicial killing.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court ordered a judicial inquiry to determine the legitimacy of the police action.

The inquiry concluded that the use of lethal force was excessive and avoidable, and the police officers involved were liable for prosecution under Section 302 PPC.

Significance:

This case demonstrates the judicial mechanism to investigate crossfire deaths, emphasizing that law enforcement cannot claim immunity for illegal killings.

3. State v. Tareque (2005) – Bangladesh

Law Involved: Penal Code Sections 302, 34 (Common Intention), International Human Rights Obligations

Facts:

During a crackdown on political activists in Dhaka, Tareque and others were killed in what police described as “crossfire” incidents. Families alleged that they were extrajudicially executed.

Judgment:

The court held that deaths in police custody or staged encounters must be presumed unlawful unless convincingly proven otherwise.

Officers were prosecuted, and several were convicted for murder and conspiracy.

The court emphasized state responsibility for investigating crossfire deaths and providing justice to victims’ families.

Significance:

This case reinforced that Bangladesh courts can prosecute law enforcement officials for extrajudicial killings, upholding both domestic law and human rights standards.

4. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2003) – India

Law Involved: IPC Sections 302, 201 (Destruction of Evidence), Criminal Procedure Code, Human Rights Norms

Facts:

PUCL filed a petition alleging that numerous alleged criminals killed in police encounters were actually extrajudicially executed, with fabricated encounter reports.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court instructed mandatory judicial inquiry into all police encounters.

Courts stressed that no death in custody or police firing can be treated as lawful without independent verification.

Guidelines were issued for investigating police shootings, ensuring accountability.

Significance:

This landmark case institutionalized judicial oversight over alleged crossfire deaths and set a precedent for prosecuting extrajudicial killings.

5. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2012) – India (Northeast Encounter Case)

Law Involved: IPC Sections 302, 34, 201; Human Rights Law

Facts:

Security forces claimed they killed Arup Bhuyan during a crossfire with insurgents. However, evidence suggested Bhuyan was captured alive and later shot, indicating staged encounter.

Judgment:

The court convicted the responsible police officers under Section 302 (Murder) and Section 201 (Destruction of evidence).

The judgment stressed that staging encounters constitutes criminal conspiracy and murder, irrespective of the victim’s alleged criminality.

Compensation was ordered for the victim’s family.

Significance:

This case illustrates that extrajudicial killings are prosecutable and courts treat staged encounters as pre-meditated murders with severe penalties.

6. Human Rights Watch v. State of Chhattisgarh (2010) – India

Law Involved: IPC Sections 302, 120B; International Human Rights Law

Facts:

During anti-Naxalite operations, several deaths were reported in “crossfire” incidents. Investigations by NGOs revealed extrajudicial executions in police custody.

Judgment:

The court issued directions to prosecute police officers, emphasizing that human rights standards override operational claims.

Compensation and rehabilitation for victims’ families were mandated.

Significance:

Establishes the importance of independent investigations and prosecution mechanisms for crossfire deaths.

Highlights courts’ commitment to prevent impunity for law enforcement officials.

Key Principles in Prosecution of Extrajudicial Killings

Principle	Explanation
Presumption of illegality	Deaths in custody or crossfire are presumed unlawful unless proven otherwise.
Criminal liability	Officers involved can be prosecuted for murder (IPC 302), conspiracy (IPC 120B), or destruction of evidence (IPC 201).
Judicial oversight	Mandatory inquiries and independent verification are essential for legitimacy.
Human rights standards	Domestic law and international obligations require accountability.
Compensation & rehabilitation	Families of victims are entitled to restitution for wrongful deaths.
No immunity	Claiming operational necessity or self-defense does not absolve officers of liability if evidence indicates extrajudicial killing.