2012 (9) TMI 988 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Police Appeal, Quashes Complaint

OM PRAKASH & ORS. Versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & KAILASHPATI SINGH Versus RAJIV RANJAN SINGH & ANR

OM PRAKASH & ORS. Versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & KAILASHPATI SINGH Versus RAJIV RANJAN SINGH & ANR - 2012 (9) SCR 125, 2012 (12) SCC 72, 2012 (9) JT 642, ... Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the encounter resulting in the death of the complainant's son.2. Requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for prosecuting police officers.3. Whether the police officers acted in discharge of their official duties.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Encounter:The complainant alleged that his son, Munna Singh, was killed in a fake encounter by the police on 1/7/2004. The complaint detailed that Munna Singh was not involved in criminal activities and was falsely implicated. The postmortem report indicated that Munna Singh had three bullet wounds in his chest, suggesting close-range firing. The complainant also contended that the autopsy was not videographed and that the police cremated the body without informing the family, allegedly to destroy evidence.Contrarily, the police version, supported by FIRs and an affidavit by Dy.S.P. Kujur, stated that Munna Singh and others had attacked a businessman, Jeevan Naredi, for ransom and subsequently fired at the police when intercepted. The police retaliated in self-defense, resulting in the deaths. The police presented evidence including seizure memos of firearms and motorbikes at the scene, supporting their account of an armed encounter.Investigations by CID and NHRC concluded that the encounter was genuine, with reports detailing statements from witnesses and forensic evidence corroborating the police's version. The court found no merit in the complainant's allegations, noting the lack of evidence for a staged encounter and the consistency in the police's account.2. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code:The High Court quashed proceedings against Dy.S.P. Rajiv Ranjan Singh on the ground that sanction under Section 197 was not obtained. For other police personnel, the High Court dismissed their petition due to the absence of a notification under Section 197(3) protecting them from prosecution.The Supreme Court clarified that a notification issued by the State of Bihar in 1980 extended protection under Section 197(2) to all police force members. This protection applies if the act complained of is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duties. The court emphasized that sanction is a precondition for prosecution and can be raised at any stage if the act is integrally connected with official duties.3. Whether the Police Officers Acted in Discharge of Their Official Duties:The court examined whether the police officers' actions were directly connected with their official duties. The test applied was whether the act was done in the discharge of official duties or so integrally connected with it as to be inseparable. The court found that the police were performing their duty when they retaliated against the armed criminals, and their actions were not a cloak for objectionable acts.The court referred to several precedents, including the Constitution Bench judgment in *Matajog Dobey*, which held that the necessity for sanction must be determined from stage to stage. In this case, the court concluded that the police action was in the performance of official duties and not vindictive or mala fide.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the complainant and allowed the appeal by the police personnel. The court quashed the complaint against the police officers, emphasizing the necessity of sanction under Section 197 for prosecuting acts done in discharge of official duties. The court found no evidence of a fake encounter and upheld the police's version of events.