Power Of Punishment Is Within Judiciary’s Domain: Allahabad High Court Issues Guidelines For Cases Where Accused Sustains Grievous Injury In Police Encounter

The High Court was considering a bail application in a case registered under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2) of the BNS.

The Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held, “ This Court came across in several cases which prima facie shows that some police officers, who are part of police team involved in police encounter, just to get out of turn promotion or appreciation from the higher authority or to get fame in social media unnecessarily used fire arm and caused fire arm injury on the leg of the accused just below the knee. Such act is not permissible in the eyes of law as the power of punishment to accused is within the domain of judiciary and not in the domain of police. India is a democratic country. It has to be run as per the ethos and directions of the Constitution of India which clearly distinguishes role of legislature, executive and judiciary. In the garb of appreciation or for other extraneous purposes, police officers cannot be allowed to take the function of judiciary to punish a criminal by unnecessary firing and causing injuries even on non-vital part.”

Advocate Kusum Mishra represented the Applicant, while Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The matter pertained to a police encounter in which the applicant sustained grievous injuries. The Court had earlier directed the A.G.A. to seek instructions in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) specifically as to whether any F.I.R. was registered in respect of the police encounter and whether the statement of the injured has been recorded before a Magistrate or any Medical Officer. The Court had also issued certain requirements to be followed in the matters of investigating police encounters in the cases of death as the standard procedure for thorough, effective and independent investigation.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the Additional Home Secretary, U.P. and the DGP could not dispute the fact that directions of the Apex Court in PUCL's case (supra) were not being substantially complied with by the several police officers, though repeated circulars were issued. Both officers assured that they would issue fresh directions to all the police officers to strictly comply with the directions issued in PUCL's case (supra) regarding police encounter.

The Bench noticed that the Apex Court in PUCL's case (supra) had observed that though in the case of death, there is procedure in Criminal Procedure Code for conducting magisterial inquiry but a separate FIR should also be registered regarding police encounter wherein death or grievous injury occurred and investigation should be conducted by CID or by police team headed by an officer above the rank of officer, who was leading the police encounter.

The Bench further highlighted several cases which prima facie show that some police officers, who are part of the police team involved in a police encounter, just to get out of turn promotion or appreciation from the higher authority, or to get fame on social media, unnecessarily used firearms and caused firearm injury to the leg of the accused just below the knee.

“From the above discussion, it is clear that the protection of human life and dignity is not only the object of the Constitution of India but also universal principles accepted by the international community which cannot be allowed to be taken away at the whims and fancies of certain officers of law enforcement agency”, it further held.

Thus, the Bench summarily prescribed the following guidelines in the case of grievous injury to the accused in a police encounter:

• If, in pursuance to any information, a police party reached at the spot and an encounter takes place wherein fire arm is used by the police party and as a result accused or any other person receives grievous injury, then an FIR to that effect shall be registered by the head of the police party
• In the FIR, name of the members of the police party involved in the encounter are not required to be mentioned in the category of accused/suspect, but only the team whether STF or regular police, could be mentioned.
• The injured criminal/victim should be provided medical aid and his/her injury should be examined, and thereafter his/her statement should be recorded either by the Magistrate or Medical Officer with a certificate of fitness of the injured.
• After a complete investigation into the incident of police encounter, the report should be sent to the competent court who will follow the procedure as mentioned in the judgement given by the Apex Court in PUCL's case (supra).
• Out of turn promotion or gallantry award shall not be given to the officer of the police party soon after occurrence of police encounter. It must be ensured that such reward are given or recommended only when gallantry reward of person is established beyond doubt by a committee constituted by the police head.
• If the family of the injured in police encounter finds that the above procedure has not been followed or there exists lack of independent investigation or pattern of abuse or impartiality by any of the functionaries then he may make a complaint to the Sessions Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place of incident of police encounter.

Coming to the case at hand, the Bench ordered the release of the applicant after considering the entire facts of the case, submissions of the parties as well as keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases.

Cause Title: Raju Alias Rajkumar v. State of U.P. (Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45637 of 2025)

Click here to read/download Order