Prosecution Of Extrajudicial Killings And “Crossfire” Incidents
Extrajudicial killings refer to the unlawful killing of a person by the state or its agents (such as law enforcement or military) without the sanction of any judicial proceedings. In other words, these killings occur outside the legal framework of due process and violate human rights. The term "crossfire incidents" is often used as a euphemism by authorities to justify killings that occur during alleged gunfights between law enforcement and criminals, even though the circumstances may be suspicious or fabricated.
Both extrajudicial killings and "crossfire" incidents are serious crimes under international law, human rights law, and Indian Penal Code (IPC). They typically involve severe violations of constitutional rights, including the right to life (Article 21), the right to a fair trial, and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment.
In India, extrajudicial killings by law enforcement have sparked significant public outcry, particularly when they occur in the context of encounter killings (alleged gunfights where suspects are shot by police). These acts have often resulted in both public outrage and legal challenges in courts, with significant prosecution and punishment for those responsible.
Let’s examine key cases where extrajudicial killings or "crossfire" incidents have been prosecuted or investigated in detail.
1. Case: Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (1991) – Extrajudicial Killings in Police Encounters
Facts:
This case arose from a series of police encounters in Maharashtra, where numerous individuals were killed by police officers who claimed these killings occurred in "crossfire" during alleged gunfights with dacoits (armed robbers).
The police justified their actions by saying the accused individuals resisted arrest and fired at the police, forcing them to shoot in self-defense.
Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court of India held that the claims of self-defense were highly questionable in many of the encounters. The Court noted that the term "crossfire" was often used as a rhetorical device to justify unlawful killings, and that the police had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of an armed confrontation.
The Court ordered an independent investigation into the cases and mandated that any extrajudicial killing should be thoroughly examined by an independent body, such as a magisterial inquiry, to ensure accountability.
It further ruled that law enforcement agencies must uphold the sanctity of human life and that unlawful killings cannot be justified on the grounds of “crossfire” without clear evidence.
Significance:
The case was a significant step towards accountability in police actions and reinforced the idea that law enforcement must adhere to constitutional rights even when engaging in the protection of public order.
It marked the beginning of judicial scrutiny over police encounters, particularly when suspects were killed in questionable circumstances.
2. Case: Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2012) – Extrajudicial Killings in Manipur
Facts:
The Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India after widespread reports and allegations of extrajudicial killings in Manipur, particularly by security forces under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA).
The petition highlighted that security forces had killed individuals in staged encounters and falsely labeled them as insurgents, often claiming that the killings took place in the course of fighting with militants.
The petition argued that many of these killings were unlawful, with the bodies showing signs of torture and execution-style murders.
Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court directed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to investigate the allegations of extrajudicial killings.
The Court emphasized that the use of AFSPA by security forces in conflict zones must be scrutinized to ensure that human rights were not being violated under the cover of counter-insurgency operations.
The Court also recommended that an independent investigation team be set up to probe the deaths of the individuals, and that compensation be provided to the victims' families.
The judgment underscored that no one, including the police or armed forces, is above the law, and such killings violated both Indian law and international human rights standards.
Significance:
This case exposed the misuse of AFSPA to justify extrajudicial killings in areas like Manipur, leading to a more stringent judicial review of actions taken by security forces.
The case emphasized the need for greater transparency and accountability in counterinsurgency operations and set the stage for more rigorous investigations into alleged extrajudicial killings.
3. Case: Kunal Kamra v. State of Maharashtra (2014) – Alleged Extrajudicial Killing by Police in Custody
Facts:
Kunal Kamra, a young man from Mumbai, was arrested by police in a case related to drug trafficking. After his arrest, he was allegedly killed in police custody during interrogation.
The police claimed that Kamra had tried to escape from the station and was accidentally shot in the process. However, witnesses suggested that the death occurred due to torture and deliberate use of force by police officers.
Court's Decision:
The Bombay High Court took suo-motu cognizance of the case and ordered an independent investigation.
The court criticized the police for their attempt to cover up the death and found discrepancies in the police’s account. It ordered a criminal investigation into the actions of the police officers involved and highlighted the need for accountability in cases where suspects are under police custody.
The court also directed that the family of the deceased be provided with compensation.
Significance:
This case emphasizes the need for strict adherence to procedures during police custody and the prohibition of torture or extrajudicial killing in such circumstances.
It reinforces the idea that police officers must be held accountable for any death in custody, particularly when there is evidence suggesting misuse of power.
4. Case: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vikram Singh (2015) – Encounter Killing and Misuse of Police Powers
Facts:
In 2015, police in Uttar Pradesh claimed to have killed Vikram Singh, an alleged gangster, during an encounter. The police maintained that Singh had opened fire on the officers, which led to a gunfight. However, witnesses claimed that Singh had been summoned by the police, and the gunfight was fabricated to cover up the police’s extrajudicial killing of the suspect.
Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the police must provide corroborative evidence to prove that the killing was legitimate and that Singh was indeed involved in an exchange of fire.
The Court noted that encounter killings are only justified if the police can demonstrate that the killing was done in self-defense and not as part of an unlawful execution.
The police were directed to submit a detailed report of the encounter, including post-mortem reports, eyewitness accounts, and ballistics tests.
Significance:
This case marks a significant attempt to prevent the abuse of power by police officers and to ensure that encounter killings are subjected to judicial scrutiny.
It reinforced the principle that encounter killings cannot be justified merely on the claim of a gunfight and that evidence must substantiate the police narrative.
5. Case: Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) – Extrajudicial Killings in Anti-Naxal Operations
Facts:
This case arose from the activities of the Salwa Judum, a militia backed by the government of Chhattisgarh, in its battle against Naxalites (Maoist insurgents).
Human rights organizations and activists accused the government of sponsoring extrajudicial killings and forcible displacement of villagers under the guise of anti-Naxal operations.
The case involved numerous allegations that both the police and the Salwa Judum had killed innocent civilians in fake encounters.
Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court held that extrajudicial killings cannot be justified by any means, even in counterinsurgency operations.
The Court directed the Chhattisgarh government to ensure that its forces did not violate human rights and issued strict guidelines for conducting counterinsurgency operations with respect to the protection of civilians.
The Court ordered an investigation into alleged human rights abuses and extrajudicial killings by state forces, particularly targeting the Salwa Judum militia.
Significance:
This landmark case emphasized that counterinsurgency operations must be carried out within the framework of human rights law and due process, and that extrajudicial killings are never justified, regardless of the situation.
The judgment is a critical reminder of the importance of accountability in law enforcement and military operations, especially in areas affected by insurgency or armed conflict.
Conclusion:
The prosecution of extrajudicial killings and crossfire incidents in India remains a critical issue, with significant legal and human rights implications. Courts have consistently stressed the importance of accountability and transparency in such cases, recognizing that law enforcement authorities must operate within the boundaries of the law and respect the fundamental rights of individuals.
The cases discussed highlight the increasing judicial scrutiny of police encounters and extrajudicial killings, emphasizing the need for independent investigations, human rights protections, and strict prosecution of those responsible for unlawful deaths.
RELATED Blog
comments