Quick answer
A death in a police encounter must be independently investigated. It cannot simply be accepted on the word of the officers involved. In PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014), the Supreme Court of India laid down 16 requirements for every encounter death. They include recording the tip-off in writing, registering an FIR, investigation by the CID or a police team from another police station, and a mandatory magisterial inquiry. The Court declared these requirements to be law under Article 141, binding on all police forces.
The case
People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 1999 with connected matters, order of 23 September 2014, Bench: R.M. Lodha CJI (author) and Rohinton Fali Nariman J., reported as (2014) 10 SCC 635. PUCL's writ petitions in the Bombay High Court had questioned the genuineness of nearly 99 encounters between the Mumbai police and alleged criminals from 1995 to 1997, in which about 135 people died. Drawing on Bombay High Court directions, NHRC guidelines and suggestions from the parties and the amicus curiae (court-appointed adviser), the Court issued a standard procedure for a "thorough, effective and independent investigation" of deaths in police encounters.
The main requirements
- Record the intelligence: any tip-off about grave criminal activity must be written down (preferably in the case diary) or recorded electronically, without revealing the suspect or location.
- Register an FIR: if firearms are used and death results, an FIR must be registered and sent to the court without delay.
- Independent investigation: by the CID or a police team of another police station, supervised by an officer at least one level above the head of the police party. It must identify the victim, preserve evidence, record witnesses and find the cause of death; the post-mortem is done by two doctors and video-recorded.
- Magisterial inquiry: this must be held in every death in police firing, and the report sent to the Judicial Magistrate.
- Inform the NHRC or State Human Rights Commission at once. The NHRC itself steps in only if there is serious doubt about an independent investigation.
- Weapons: the officers must surrender their weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis, subject to Article 20.
- Accountability: if the evidence shows an offence, the officer must face disciplinary action and suspension. There must be no out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry award soon after the incident.
- Family's remedy: the next of kin must be informed, and if the procedure is not followed, the family may complain to the Sessions Judge. Compensation follows the victim compensation scheme.
The guidelines also apply, as far as possible, to cases of grievous injury in police encounters.
Example
Police report that Aadil was killed in an exchange of fire during a raid. His family doubts this. Under PUCL, an FIR must be registered, the CID or another police station's team must investigate, the officers' weapons must be tested and a magistrate must inquire into the death. If these steps are skipped, his family can complain to the Sessions Judge. Even if Aadil was accused of a crime, Article 21 still protected his life.
Current-law note
The judgment refers to provisions of the old CrPC. Their B.N.S.S. equivalents are: forwarding the report to the Magistrate, Section 176 B.N.S.S. (old Section 157 CrPC); magisterial inquiry into death, Section 196 B.N.S.S. (old Section 176 CrPC); police report after investigation, Section 193 B.N.S.S. (old Section 173 CrPC); cognizance by Magistrate, Section 210 B.N.S.S. (old Section 190 CrPC); and the victim compensation scheme, Section 396 B.N.S.S. (old Section 357A CrPC). Offences once examined under the IPC now fall under the B.N.S. See also Human Rights Law: Complete Notes.
Exam point
PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014): every encounter death needs an FIR, an independent investigation and a magisterial inquiry. The 16 requirements are law declared under Article 141.
