Mumbai: Observing that the “shoutout” of the accused in the Badlapur sexual assault case could have been avoided, the Bombay High court said that the State Crime Investigation Department (CID) must conduct a fair and impartial probe. The court said if it finds that the probe is not being conducted properly then it would be “constrained to pass appropriate orders”.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan, while asking tough questions over the timeline of incidents, remarked that although it did not suspect the police but expressed that they must come clean. “The investigation has to be done fairly and impartially. If we find that this is not done then we would be constrained to pass appropriate orders,” the bench said. “We are not suspecting the police of their activities but come clean on all aspects.”
The court was hearing a petition filed by the father of the deceased alleging that it was a “fake encounter” and sought registrations of an FIR against the policemen involved. He has also sought compensation. The bench has asked the police to inform its decision on the same by the next date of hearing on October 3.
The bench questions the police about the difference in the timeline provided by the policemen and the father. It wondered how the deceased, who was “not so strong or hefty”, could overpower four policemen inside their vehicle, snatch a service pistol and fire a bullet. Also, the court asked why the deceased was shot in the head and not on his hands or legs.
Justice Chavan, emphasising that he has an experience in firing a pistol on several occasions, said it was not easy to unlock a pistol and fire it, let alone snatch it from the holster of the police. “This is very hard to believe. I have fired a pistol a hundred times. It is hard to unlock and fire. We are not suspecting at this stage but just looking at the possibilities. Revolver is easier. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can do it. But a pistol is very hard to fire,” Justice Chavan said.
He asked how the police officers, who were escorting the deceased, could be so “negligent and careless” that he managed to seize a service pistol. "What is the SOP (standard operating procedure) or guidelines (to be followed) when an accused, especially in such a serious crime, is taken into custody? Why should they (police) be so negligent and careless?” the bench asked.
The judges also remarked that the police official who allegedly shot at the deceased cannot say that he did not know how to react, considering he was an Assistant Police Inspector. “Ordinarily the retaliation would be on the leg or arm. Why directly on the head? Does he (police) not know where the shot has to be fired? It may have been spontaneous. The first reaction should have been to disarm him,” the judges said.
“It (encounter) could have been avoided. Four officers were there in the vehicle. One of the officers was involved in encounters in the past. Four officers couldn't overpower the accused? How can we believe that they couldn't overpower the accused. Accused was not hefty or strong. You all could have overpowered him.” It stressed that the shootout cannot be termed as an encounter, as the definition of the same was different.
The HC has asked the police to take “handwash” for gunpowder residue of all the policemen, including the driver of the vehicle, along with their fingerprints. The court has also asked the police to retrieve the Call Data Record of all the policemen involved. The judges have asked the forensics to check whether the bullet fired at the deceased was from a distance or from point blank range; if it was a ricochet shot or a direct shot. Also for the bullet that injured the policeman, whether it grazed him or there were entry and exit wounds.
Additionally, the HC has asked to preserve all the CCTV footage, right from Taloja jail to their journey to Mumbai bypass and to Shivaji Hospital in Kalwa.
Public prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar said that they have sent a requisition to all the private properties, on the route the police vehicle took on that day, to preserve the CCTV footage.
The father’s advocate submitted that the parents met the deceased at Taloja jail in the evening around 5pm, when the latter asked when he would get bail and asked for some money to buy certain items from the jail canteen. This shows that the deceased was not in a mental state to take any such drastic step, the advocate said. He also added that the parents wish to take the body but are unable to get a burial site to complete the final rites.
Venegaonkar said that the state would get in touch with the local authorities and make necessary arrangements.
The court was irked that despite the case being transferred to the CID on Tuesday, the papers were not handed over. “Why are the files not handed over to the CID yet? Preservation of evidence is vital. Any delay on your part would raise doubts and speculations,” the judges said.
