Badlapur sexual assault case: ‘Cops may be right about having killed someone in self-defence but there must be accountability’

In light of the High Court rap to the state government in the Badlapur custodial death case, and previous cases where the police have not acted promptly in such cases, what do you think should the response be as per law?

If the police claim that an accused was killed in an encounter, they are basically saying that they killed somebody in self-defence. Self-defence is a defence taken in a murder case. Therefore, whenever there is an encounter, an FIR must be lodged. An is not an indictment of the people named in it. Once an FIR is filed, a probe can be conducted and if there is no evidence, the police can say so in court or file a chargesheet charging those involved.

Once an FIR is filed, the criminal procedure can be followed. The place of the incident should be treated like a crime scene. The weapons involved should immediately be surrendered, there should be finger prints taken, photography and videography done for further investigation by an independent authority.

The policemen may be right about having killed someone in self-defence but there must be accountability because ultimately it has caused the death of a person. There have been cases in the past in Mumbai, where encounter deaths have turned out to be cold-blooded killings.

There are National Human Rights Commission guidelines as well as provisions in the CrPC, now replaced with the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which lay down procedure in cases of custodial deaths. An inquiry by a judicial magistrate is mandatory. Are these complied with properly?

The compliance in such cases is pathetic. A magisterial inquiry is a must. In custodial deaths, the authorities say that the death was caused as the person was already beaten up by the public before his arrest, or that he died while escaping, or that he died by suicide or was unwell. Hence, a magisterial inquiry is necessary as an independent body, who can investigate all these aspects and arrive at a conclusion on the cause for death.

It is mandatory for the police to ensure CCTV cameras are installed in all rooms of the police station where the accused will be kept or interrogation will be done for transparency. In cases of custodial deaths at the police station, police often claim that the CCTV cameras are not working. In such cases too, action should be taken against the senior police inspector, as it is their responsibility to ensure that the CCTV cameras are in working condition.

If an FIR is filed belatedly in custodial death cases, usually after orders of the High Court or Supreme Court, the police claim that the CCTV footage has been wiped out or not saved.

This too will be avoided if the FIR is filed immediately. The magisterial inquiry reports too need to be made accessible by uploading them on a website otherwise they end up being administrative inquiries without any transparency on how they were done and how the conclusion was reached that the death was natural or a suicide or does not involve the police.

Unless a family member of the person who has died as certain objection due to any reason, they reports can be made public for transparency. The state government recently announced a policy to grant compensation in cases of custodia deaths. How do you see that decision?

I will not say that compensation should not be there. But, it should not allow authorities to wash off their hands or not be held accountable, only on the basis of compensation being paid. The procedures in terms of inquiry into the death and action against erring officers should be priority too.