Delhi High Court: “There Is Ample Material to Create Doubt on the Genuineness of the Encounter”; Orders CBI Probe Into 2006 Special Cell Encounter, Citing NHRC and Magisterial Findings of a “Fake Encounter”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court ordered a CBI inquiry into the 2006 encounter carried out by the Special Cell of Delhi Police, which resulted in the death of five alleged criminals. The court relied on findings from the NHRC and the Divisional Magistrate’s (DM) report, both of which raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the encounter.

The NHRC had earlier concluded that it was a “fake encounter” and recommended a CBI probe. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Delhi Police refused to permit an independent investigation, arguing that the deceased were “hardened criminals” and that the encounter was genuine.

Additionally, the court directed that Rs. 5 lakh compensation be awarded to the next of kin of each deceased, as recommended by the NHRC. The court also reprimanded the Delhi Police and MHA for their failure to follow NHRC’s guidelines on encounter killings.

Facts

1. Incident Date & Background
   • The case concerns an alleged fake encounter by the Special Cell of Delhi Police on May 5, 2006, in which five individuals were killed.
   • The sixth suspect reportedly escaped into the darkness.
2. Police’s Version
   • Delhi Police claimed that these individuals were members of the Ayub/Aslam gang, which was involved in more than 70 serious criminal cases (including murder, robbery, rape, dacoity).
   • The Special Cell received intelligence that these criminals would be traveling in a Tata Sumo vehicle in Delhi.
   • A police team intercepted the vehicle, and the gang allegedly opened fire first, leading to a retaliatory police shooting.
3. Petitioner’s Allegations
   • The petitioner, Kiran Singh, is the father of one of the deceased, Manoj.
   • He disputed the police’s claim, arguing that Manoj was not a criminal but a provision store owner.
   • The petitioner approached the NHRC and the Delhi High Court, seeking:
     • A CBI investigation into the encounter.
     • Compensation for the families of the deceased.
4. Magisterial Inquiry & Delays
   • NHRC directed a Magisterial Inquiry in 2006.
   • The Delhi Police refused to conduct it, citing a letter from the Lt. Governor.
   • Finally, after six years of delay, a Magisterial Inquiry was conducted in 2012 by the Divisional Magistrate (DM), North-East Delhi.
   • The DM’s report cast serious doubts on the police version.

Issues

1. Was the police encounter genuine, or was it a “fake encounter”?
2. Did the police follow NHRC guidelines requiring an independent investigation and Magisterial Inquiry?
3. Should a CBI investigation be ordered given the inconsistencies in the police version?
4. Are the families of the deceased entitled to compensation, given their alleged criminal background?
5. Did the police and MHA attempt to suppress facts and mislead the inquiry?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Delay in Magisterial Inquiry Violates NHRC Guidelines
   • NHRC’s 2003 guidelines require an independent Magisterial Inquiry into encounter deaths.
   • The Delhi Police violated these guidelines by refusing to conduct the inquiry until 2012.
2. Contradictions in the Police Version
   • Despite police claims of a “gun battle,” no police officer was injured.
   • No fingerprint analysis was conducted on the weapons recovered from the deceased.
   • The bulletproof jackets of police officers were never sent for forensic examination.
3. Findings of the Divisional Magistrate’s (DM) Inquiry
   • The DM found serious inconsistencies in the police account:
     • The bodies of the deceased showed blunt force injuries, suggesting that they were beaten before being shot.
     • The escape of one gang member despite a heavy police presence (47 officers) was suspicious.
     • No forensic evidence (e.g., gunpowder residue, fingerprints) linked the deceased to the alleged shootout.
   • The DM concluded that the encounter was staged and recommended a CBI investigation.
4. NHRC’s Findings Supported the Fake Encounter Theory
   • The NHRC, after analyzing forensic reports, post-mortem reports, and witness statements, declared the encounter “fake”.
   • The NHRC rejected Delhi Police’s claim that the deceased were criminals.
5. Failure to Investigate Police Misconduct
   • The Delhi Police officers involved were never investigated.
   • The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) initially agreed to a CBI probe but later withdrew support.

Respondent’s (Delhi Police & MHA) Arguments

1. Encounter Was Genuine
   • The Delhi Police maintained that the deceased were dreaded criminals and that the encounter was necessary for public safety.
2. Contradictions in Witness Testimonies
   • The Lt. Governor’s report highlighted contradictions in statements of the deceased’s relatives.
   • The wife of one deceased initially blamed the police but later changed her statement.
3. Compensation Would Encourage Criminality
   • MHA argued that granting compensation would “send the wrong signal” and incentivize criminal activity.
4. No Need for CBI Inquiry
   • MHA withdrew its earlier support for a CBI investigation, citing lack of evidence.

Analysis of the Law

1. NHRC Guidelines on Police Encounters
   • NHRC’s 2003 guidelines mandate an independent inquiry into all encounter killings.
   • The Delhi Police ignored these guidelines.
2. Judicial Precedents on Fake Encounters
   • PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014): Supreme Court ruled that all encounter killings must be investigated independently.
   • Naga People’s Movement v. Union of India (1998): Held that extra-judicial killings violate constitutional rights.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Sufficient Evidence Suggesting a Fake Encounter
   • Post-mortem reports showed blunt force injuries, inconsistent with the police’s claim.
   • No forensic evidence confirmed that the deceased fired weapons.
   • NHRC’s investigation found significant contradictions in the police’s narrative.
2. Violation of Due Process
   • The police failed to conduct a Magisterial Inquiry in a timely manner.
   • Forensic evidence was either missing or tampered with.
3. Contradictions in Police Statements
   • The police narrative changed multiple times.
   • Escape of one gang member despite a 47-member police force was highly suspicious.
4. Need for an Independent Investigation
   • Given the contradictions and suppression of facts, an independent CBI investigation was necessary.

Conclusion

1. CBI Investigation Ordered
   • The court directed the CBI to investigate the encounter.
   • The Delhi Police failed to justify their claims.
2. NHRC’s Compensation Order Upheld
   • Rs. 5 lakh compensation must be paid to the families of the deceased.
3. Failure of MHA & Delhi Police to Follow Due Process
   • The MHA was criticized for reversing its stance on a CBI probe.
   • The court condemned the suppression of evidence.

Implications

1. Strengthens accountability on encounter killings.
2. Reinforces NHRC guidelines for independent investigations.
3. Sets a precedent for CBI probes in encounter cases.
4. Holds police accountable for extra-judicial killings.

Also Read – Supreme Court Restores Full Compensation for Loss of Parents in Fatal Accident, Rejects High Court’s Unjustified Reduction Based on Inexperience in Running Family Business