Whether Encounter is Justified or Not..??- Related to Vikas Dubey Case

At the ultimate failure of all the three pillars of a democratic country, Is Encounter the new trending way of hiding these failures?

Introduction

Encounter killing is a term used in India and Pakistan since the late 20th century to describe alleged extrajudicial killings by the police or the armed forces, supposedly in self-defense, when they encounter suspected gangsters or terrorists. This term has come into popular use in India since the late 20th century because of a very high frequency of encounter killings by police in cities such as Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata. Some of the killings have been controversial, and critics have alleged that the police created 'fake encounters' as opportunities to kill suspects.

The point mentioned in Wikipedia is appropriate to its usage in Indian police context.

So, what should police do when they encounter (taking verbal meaning) the bad guys?

• If they are unarmed then they have to chase and catch them. If not catch (because we have bigger tummies) at least chase.
• If they are armed then definitely, we need to secure the public from them, at times in order to secure they need to shoot the bad guys. As in Harry Potter we don’t have spells to disarm, but at least they could shoot on shoulders or on thighs or legs.

Weather Encounter is moral or ethical? 

Look around you, most of the animals and plants have their own defense mechanism. So we need to use our lethal power in same way, only when we are attacked. This is all ideal situation scenarios, but in real world is completely different. 

It is not only done in India, but many countries do the same, but they don’t fancy the term “Encounter”. 

According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India, there were many cases of alleged fake encounters.

Constitutional Aspects  

Article 21 of the constitution states:

“No person will be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law “

This means that before depriving a person of his life, the state is required to put the person on trial in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). In the trial, the accused must be informed of the charges against him and then given an opportunity to defend himself (through counsel) and only then, if found guilty, can he be convicted and executed.

Fake ‘encounters’, on the other hand, completely sidestep and circumvent legal procedures, as it essentially means bumping someone off without a trial. Hence it is completely unconstitutional.

Policemen often justify this method by claiming that there are some dreaded criminals against whom no one would dare to give evidence, and so the only way to deal with them is through fake encounters. The problem, however, is that this is a dangerous philosophy and can be misused. For instance, if a businessman wants to eliminate a rival businessman he can give a bribe to some unscrupulous policemen to bump off his rival in a fake ‘encounter’ after declaring him a terrorist.

Weather Encounter is Justified or not?

As long as the police encountered the criminals, having proper reasons for doing so, it is correct.

The police are there to maintain discipline and decorum in the society. Its duty is to nab the anti-social elements, in whichever manner possible, and maintain peace in the socieyty, even if that means killing them. This is entirely my opinion but I seriously do not sympathize with those people who are the agents of chaos, loot, killings, rape, dacoity or anything that disrupts the peace of society.

Consider this : I will want a Kasab to be encountered any day rather than wanting a Tukaram Omble, Vijay Salaskar, Ashok Kamte or a Hemant Karkare to be killed.

Otherwise, it is not.

Killing of any person or any being is not justified. We get to hear occasionally in news about police carrying out fake encounters. This is totally unjustified and an abhorring act. The police should be made to give reasons as to why they encountered a person and the reasons should be strictly scrutinized.

Nobody wants to lose his/her daughter/son/father/mother/brother/sister to fake encounters. And if a policeman does a fake encounter, then he should also be treated as a person who broke the peace of society, and he should also be punished as strictly as possible.

Recent Cases

• The Hyderabad ‘encounter’ killing by the police of the four alleged rapists of the veterinary doctor again raises questions about the validity of the tool of extrajudicial killings devised and resorted to by a large section of the Indian police. These were widely practised by the Maharashtra police to deal with the Mumbai underworld, by the Punjab police against Sikhs demanding Khalistan.
• Vikas Dubey became the sixth member of his gang to be killed in police encounter. Five had been gunned down while police were searching for Vikas Dubey, following an ambush on a police party in his village on July 2-3 night. These men had also been killed in encounters.

These deaths at the hand of police have now triggered a fresh debate over encounters. The dictionary meaning of encounter inherently conveys an "unexpectedness" of the event or incident. These encounters, however, were anticipated by people, who had already been saying that Vikas Dubey and his gang men would be killed in encounters.

NHRC Guidelines Related to Encounter

Questions are being raised over encounter of gangster Vikas Dubey.

In 2010, the NHRC had issued guidelines over police encounters. In 2012, the Supreme Court had warned the trigger-happy police over the question. 

Do police have the right to take lives? The police have not been conferred any right to take someone's life except under two circumstances:

1. If the death is caused by the right to private defence and the police is attacked by the suspects.
2. Using force, extending up to the causing of death, necessary to arrest the person accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

NHRC guidelines in 2010 say that if the use of force cannot be justified and the death falls outside the jurisdiction of the above mentioned, it is a crime and the police officer would be guilty of culpable homicide. 

Who investigates the case? In its judgement in September 2014 on the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs government of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines. 

An FIR should be immediately filed by the police at the police station concerned based on the information received. Since the police officers at the station are a party to the encounter, it is appropriate for an outside agency such as the state CID or officers from another police station to investigate the case. A magisterial inquiry must be held in the case, preferably in a span of three months and the report should be handed over to the judicial magistrate. Prompt disciplinary action should be taken against the police officers found guilty.

What’s the role of NHRC? The SC guidelines say that the involvement of NHRC is not mandatory unless there is serious doubt that the investigation was not impartial. However, it says that within 48 hours of the encounter, a preliminary report should be sent to the commission with the briefs of the incident. A second report should be sent to the NHRC with details of post-mortem, inquest report, magisterial enquiry and results from forensic and ballistic experts, within three months of the encounter.

Are cops involved in encounters worthy of praise and rewards? No. No promotions or gallantry awards should be presented to the officials who were a part of the encounter immediately after the incident. Rewards should be given only when the gallantry of the officer is established beyond doubt.

What recourse do families have? If any of the above procedures are not followed, families of victims who died in the encounter can approach a Sessions Judge asking for a probe, say the guidelines. 

What if the police personnel are found guilty? The police personnel will be charged under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code for culpable homicide. Compensation should be granted to the kin of the deceased in case the police officers are prosecuted on the basis of investigation.

Conclusion

The problem with encounters is that you do not give the person you are killing a chance to either defend themselves, or be proven guilty, or a chance to change. You condemn a person to death, without trying to figure out they are actually criminals. It is not necessary that the intelligence you get is correct. 

In case with Irshat Jahan is that, she was not a known terrorist, had never displayed any intention of causing terror and we only have the word of the cops that shot her, that she was present at the site of the killing. What is stopping the cops from accidentally killing her and then covering up the same by calling her a terrorist? What is stopping the cops from planting weapons at the place where they killed innocents to cover up their folly?

Cops are not the decision makers in matters of justice, the courts are. The punishment must be left to the judiciary, which is why we have courts and laws. If a government or the police decide they are judge, jury and executioner, then why have a process for justice? If it turns out that the people killed in an encounter were innocent, then what action should be taken against the police and the government involved in such an operation? No one should be equipped by a government to take the life of another human being, unless directly attacked. You can arrest these people if you have the intelligence, instead of killing them.

Ques Raised in Vikas Dube Encounter Case

Gangster Vikas Dube has been killed in an encounter by UP police. This is indeed sad commentary on our justice and law enforcement systems. Vikas should have been made to face the courts and duly punished. As a country we are proud that we gave a fair trial to Kasab, a terrorist, and hanged him after due process of law. Are we sliding down towards becoming a lawless barbaric society?

According to me, m totally not satisfied by encounter, also in a favour of trial. Every person have a right to fair trial. Vikas should be made to face court and to be punished accordingly as he is not proved guilty but on other hand a person who had over 60 criminal cases against him, including murder, kidnapping and extortion, we also can't say him innocent. If we can't say that he is guilty then we also can't rely on the point that he is innocent. There is enough cause of action by him which won't prove him guilty, but somehow shows his intentions. 

But in a country where a victim of rape such a hilarious crime got justice after a huge period (some of them). What you think a criminal like Vikas who has a strong political background get punishment accordingly with fair trial...?? and 8 policemen who were killed by him got justice...??

So this is where we stand now, At the ultimate failure of all the three pillars of a democratic country,

Is encounter, the new trending way of hiding these failures? If this happen every time then where are we standing. The criminals must be punished for their deeds but not by making a bad image (which already was worst) of the whole system in the eyes of public. Officers lost their lives by doing their duty and system is working on revenge theory. Had it not been a real tribute if those from the system involved with him since such a long time would be disclosed?