Introduction
A fake encounter means the assassination of somebody without a trial. After endeavoring a fake encounter, police officers often defend encounters by justifying that there are some dreaded criminals in contradiction of whom no one will provoke to give evidence, and so the only way to deal with them is by counterfeit encounters.
As stated in the Constitution under Article 21 that no individual will be deprived of his life or personal liberty excluding in accordance with the procedure established by law. This means that previously depriving an individual of his life, the state is essential to put up that individual on trial in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. In that trial, the alleged must be well-versed of the charges in contradiction to him, and then provide an opportunity to represent himself. If the person is found responsible, then the person can be condemned and executed. Unfortunately, extrajudicial killing is not a new problem in India. Police Officers have exploited earlier to resolve revolts. Such kinds of revolts happened in the state of Bengal in the 1960 and in the state of Punjab in 1980. Recently, many of these revolts and killings related to national security violations including terrorism, in states of Kashmir and Manipur and in some parts of India which are vigorously in engagement.
Under the laws in India, while the police officers are legally approved with crime investigation and law prosecution, no endowment provides for punishment by the officials as it is the dominion of the court. In circumstance, the law specifically forbids detention of accused in police custody for more than twenty-four hours. Police officers do not have any accurate right to take away the lifespan of an individual who is beneath their custody. Lawful authorization for killing an individual is only provided in the fewest cases and that too is in accordance with the process established by law as mentioned in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Unexpectedly, Police officers with such fake killings and encounter allegations in contradiction to them are frequently called the encounter specialist. It can be determined that moderately being impeached and penalized, these killings of acquitted individuals by police officers are reinforced by our very institutes.
The main purpose recognized to delight police executions is the burdening of a speedy and inactive judicial system, in the perception that encounters deliver immediate justice. The definitive operational and postponement in the Courts occasionally induces the police officers to take the law into their hands. Trials grind on for years and years, and the consequence remains ambiguous, predominantly in an instance of offenders, who relish on ready money and force authority, and occasionally also accomplish to gain victory in elections, behind bars. A total alteration of the criminal justice structure with fast-track courts and police representative modifications is a terrible necessity. It is also frequently realized that the victims of these kinds of encounters are terrifying offenders who have numerous instances of crimes registered against them in numerous kinds of terrible offenses. Unexpectedly, these offenders still accomplish to wander freely on bail due to the absence of evidence, because of imparting so much fear among every person that either no witness wants to present their statement or all the witnesses turn adverse.
It is probably only because of the whole interconnection between politicians and the administration, to whom these kinds of offenders often sponsor for elections and other resolutions, but occasionally, due to immoderations and pressure by public individuals, false encounters are often showcased by police officers because there is burden by the political leaders to produce speedy outcomes by any means, reasonable or obscene, so that the interconnection formed by the politician’s burden does not get out of action, at the time of trial.
The Emphasis of the National Human Right Commissions on Fake Encounters-
The National Human Rights Commission has specified that police officers are not deliberated with the precise to take away the right of any individual. Regarding personal defense, the right to police officers is also accessible as available to any ordinary individual. Additionally, usage of force during the arrest of an individual to instigate death may only be admissible if the individual was a suspect of an offense for which punishment would be life imprisonment or death. But if the enactment of police officers is not acceptable on the grounds of personal defense concerning Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police officers will be responsible for culpable homicide. In 1997, the National Human Right Commission had originally outlined a four-period procedure to be surveyed in situations like encounters which comprised registration of offense, investigation of the situations by self-governing agencies like the Crime Investigation Department, and conceding of reimbursement to the families of deceased, if the investigation directed to the conviction of police officers. The procedures were again reviewed in 2010. The reviewed procedures provide a detailed procedure comprising of registration of encounter, investigation by self-governing investigating agencies, dominant investigation to be directed desirable within three months if police conflict caused in decease, speedy action in contradiction of the police officers found guilty, no bravery honors or promotions unless his bravery was evidenced beyond the uncertainty and sending a report to the commission by the Superintendent of Police or the Senior Superintendent of Police in a detailed presentation.
The new procedures added by 2010 also made domineering inquiry compulsory in all cases, where decease occurs as an outcome of policy accomplishment, within three months. The commission also obligatory reporting of all cases of decease to be made to it, by the Senior Superintendent of Police or the District Superintendent, within 48 hours of the death, along with a suggestion of post-mortem report, investigation report, and conclusions of domineering inquiry within three months. The National Human Rights Commission has also arranged down certain procedures, which purposes at making video-recordings and cinematography of the post-mortem examinations, of any individual who deceases in police action, which has to be succumbed to the commission, for a further sequence of action.
In November 2019, a 25-year-old woman was brutally raped and then murdered in Hyderabad by four people which had stunned the entire nation. All four alleged in the crime were killed by police triggering a response of admiration for what many people see as immediate justice but also growing distresses over extra-judicial executions. A senior police officer revealed that the alleged snatched weapons from police officers and fired on them and tried to flee. Police officers also fired in retribution in which the four alleged died along with two police officers being wounded. News of the ‘encounter’ assassination directed to celebrations in some sectors and anxiety in others as many individuals are of the mindset that the trial can go for years and no immediate justice would be completed to the women. Similarly, the 2008 Acid attack case where three males threw acid on the face of two females who were engineering students. All three offenders were assassinated in an encounter by the police officers and were under the direct administration of the superintendent of police. This confrontation was seen as a form of immediate justice to the victim’s family.
Despite no hypothetical lawful position providing for extrajudicial assassination, in practice, police officers in India have been authorized concession. They can murder and acquittal themselves by requesting self-defense and not register any complaint. This exception trembled the complete humanity at jeopardy. On authorization from the magistrate, any police officers can protect himself while handling minimum strength to disband a mob or unlawful assembly; even when open shooting they should not intend to kill any individuals. Section 100 and section 300 of the Indian Penal Code permit self-defense to police personnel and the necessity of self-defense is to be authenticated and verified in a court of law.
If police officers start grasping law into their own hands, it will outcome in uncultured injustice to humanity at large. Due to the increasing mentality of lynching, individuals after the occurrence of crimes such as rape, hideous murder, and other terrible crime pursues retribution and while defending their mindset and activities, they often fault the underprivileged justice system and absence of appropriate investigation. Individuals must evoke that there is a rule of law and process and therefore important that severe actions are taken against such police officers.
Conclusion
Implementation of authority desires to be within rule of law. Fake encounters are unknown more than contempt rule of law. It disturbs the management of the unlawful justice system and the reliability of the rule of law. In cultured humanity, theatrical encounters can never be a substitute to the procedure of conviction through trial. Three different demarcations: administration, supervisory, and judiciary have been completed for different resolutions. If the police officers start doing the work of the judiciary, then there is no need for a distinct judiciary. India’s criminal justice structure and police officials need to go through foremost modifications. Immediate trial for an individual imprisoned for dangerous crimes is the essential requirement today. Individuals are trailing their extreme confidence in the judiciary due to numerous details like it takes years and many more years in the conviction of the offender. Even in many cases, the offender gets acquitted due to numerous explanations like inappropriate investigation of the part of police officers, lack of witnesses, etc.
