advertisement
The 'encounter' killing of the four men accused in the rape and murder of a woman veterinarian in Hyderabad touched a national nerve, with lakhs of tweets (and counting) in just a few hours, some cheering and others concerned at what they saw as one more instance of vigilantism.
Thousands of people aired their views, many recalling that Cyberabad Commissioner VC Sajjanar, who carried out the "encounter", had been involved in a similar incident in 2008.
The Quint has taken the views of several legal experts including Justice RS Sodhi, a former judge of the Delhi High Court, as well as lawyers known for their work in the field of women’s rights, human rights, and criminal reform to understand whether these killings could be construed as justice, and whether the many problems in our judicial system are a justification for such action.
Supreme Court lawyer Karuna Nundy, who was one of the experts consulted for the criminal law reforms in 2013 after the Nirbhaya case, pointed out the dangers of killing the men before they had been convicted in a court of law.
"Now nobody will ever know if the four men killed by the police were innocent men, arrested fast to show action. And whether four of the most brutal rapists roam free, to rape and kill more women," she said.
Senior lawyer and human rights activist Vrinda Grover called the killing of the accused “absolutely unacceptable”, and added that the act only added to the state's “arsenal of unlimited arbitrary violence” in the name of equality for women. She also noted the dangerous way in which the police were escaping accountability by conducting extrajudicial killings like this:
Grover noted that the Supreme Court has laid down several guidelines for investigation of encounter cases, including the registration of an FIR against the police and an independent judicial inquiry,
Former Delhi High Court judge RS Sodhi says that he does not see this as an encounter because they were under custody and the accused attempt to escape. “Shooting people is not a satisfaction of law,” he explained.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who heads the Human Rights Law Network, questioned why people were delighted by this ‘shortcut to justice’. He warned that there was a need to look at situations like this more carefully, adding that “The persons who say that even if it is a fake encounter, it does not matter, are presuming that the person killed is the person who committed the rape and murder.”
Senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal, who has long advocated for important criminal reforms, also warned against viewing the killings as a delivery of justice, pointing out that this is against the rule of law:
Karuna Nundy wants this to be a wake up call to the judiciary and the government to make sure that delays in the justice system are fixed and such incidents are dealt with.
“You can’t flog the judiciary as an alternative and get away, brush everything under the carpet,” says Justice Sodhi, adding, “Taking alternative routes and measures is not rule of law. You can’t cut corners, you cant allow the police to accuse, investigate and then judge and execute the sentence. You can’t allow it.”
Kamini Jaiswal said there was certainly a need for speedy justice, but that this wasn’t the way to achieve it:
Colin Gonsalves explains that as per the law, there has to be an investigation of the police officers for murder when it comes to encounter killings.
“The law will presume that the police officers are guilty of murder,” he told The Quint, elaborating that “the police officers will be required to prove that they are in fact innocent, so there is a reversal of the burden of proof.”
Kamini Jaiswal believes that the circumstances of the killings indicate that they were entirely the mistake of the police and confirms that an FIR should be registered against them.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)