Hours after the Hyderabad Police shot dead four persons accused of raping and murdering a young veterinary doctor, appreciation poured in from various parts of the country. People showered rose petals on the policemen; a few women tied rakhis around their wrists; celebrities lauded the police for delivering swift justice and chief ministers praised the police’s actions. However, the personnel involved in the encounter may soon find themselves entangled in a legal battle as the Supreme Court has paved the way for their prosecution based on the Justice Sirpurkar Commission’s recommendations.
The Supreme Court had appointed the commission in 2019 to probe the legitimacy of the encounter. After a rigorous probe, the commission categorically concluded that the policemen had shot the accused with the intention to kill them, and not in self-defence or to prevent them from fleeing. It went on to recommend the prosecution of the policemen under charges of murder and destruction of evidence. On May 20, the Supreme Court directed the Telangana High Court to pass appropriate directions after perusing the report.
The commission’s findings and recommendations are significant as police officers accused of eliminating suspects often enjoy support of the state machinery and the public. In 2018, a report published by Common Cause revealed that one out of two people felt that there was nothing wrong in the police behaving violently with alleged criminals.
Their survey also revealed that one in five police officers believed that eliminating criminals extrajudicially is better than judicial trials. On multiple occasions, the Supreme Court and the high courts have detected efforts by the government and the police department to protect trigger-happy policemen from prosecution.
Despite the police’s attempts to tamper with evidence and string a false narrative, the commission’s meticulous analysis of documents and stringent questioning of the accused exposed the falsehood propagated by the police. However, the commission’s report is not sufficient for a court to commence a murder trial. Therefore, it is desirable that an agency like the CBI or a Special Investigation Team conducts a court-monitored investigation expeditiously and files a chargesheet against the errant police officers. Prolonged trials have a detrimental impact on witnesses as they make witnesses vulnerable to threats and also affect their ability to recollect facts. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that the trial is conducted without undue delay.
Apart from piercing the veil of falsehood, the commission has come up with important recommendations to curb police excesses. It has recommended installation of cameras in police vehicles, recording videos of witnesses deposing before police officers and magistrates, and the use of body cameras by the police. Having noticed that the police had illegally obtained custody of the accused by making an executive magistrate (a tahsildar) sign an order prepared by the police themselves, the commission has recommended complete avoidance of empowering executive magistrates to pass orders on custody. Furthermore, the commission has recommended that even if the accused are in jail, they ought to be produced before the magistrate and informed in advance whenever the police seek the accused’s custody. This is to ensure that the police do not take jailed suspects into their custody in a clandestine manner.
While the commission’s recommendations may usher in reforms in policing, it is equally important to dislodge the popular narrative on encounters and other forms of extrajudicial killings. It is fallacious to perceive an extrajudicial killing of a suspect as delivery of instant justice. A person’s right to a fair trial and the right to life do not vanish merely because the police suspect him of being guilty of a heinous crime. In civilised nations governed by the rule of law, it is the courts that determine guilt after scrutinising evidence and according a fair hearing to the accused. Therefore, an extrajudicial killing is inherently wrong.
We should not remain oblivious to the fact that policing is not immune from bias and errors. The police’s belief that a person is guilty of a crime may well be the result of an erroneous investigation or the investigator’s bias. There have been numerous instances of people being wrongly incarcerated due to improper collection of evidence, fallibility of forensic science, hasty investigations, etc. Studies have also revealed that the police are biased against citizens belonging to certain groups such as Muslims and ‘criminal tribes’. This being the case, it is irrational to instantly believe that persons killed by the police were actually guilty.
Just like citizens, the police are required to scrupulously follow the law. Encouraging police officers to satiate public anger by gunning down suspects is fraught with danger. The failure to indict such officers undermines the rule of law and emboldens the police to function as a lawless group, guided by their biases and subjective notions of justice.
(The writer is a lawyer)