No self-defence for cops: HC

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,Feb. 6: Following are the excerpts of the judgment delivered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday in the encounter deaths’ case.The bench said, “Where a police officer causes the death of a person, acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties or in self-defence as the case may be, the first information relating to such circumstances (even where by a police/public official, whether an alleged perpetrator is named or not) shall be recorded and registered as an FIR enumerating the relevant provisions of law (Under Sections 154(1) 156 and 157 CRPC) and shall be investigated”.Further, it held that the right of private defence cannot be conclusively determined during investigation. The opinion recorded by the investigation officer (on self-defence) in the final report forwarded to the magistrate (Section 173 CRPC) is only an opinion. “Such opinion shall be considered by the magistrate in the context of the record of the investigation together with the material and evidence collected during the course of investigation. The magistrate (notwithstanding an opinion of the investigating officer …) shall critically examine the entirety of the evidence collected during the investigation to ascertain whether the opinion of the investigation officer is borne out by the record of the investigation.The magistrate has the discretion to disregard the opinion and take cognisance of the offence under Section 190 CRPC.”It added that a magisterial enquiry (inquest) under section 174 to 176 CRPC is neither a substitute nor an alternative to the obligation to record the information as FIR and to conduct investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender under Section 154(1) and 157 Crpc.The bench pointed out that in view of its declaration (that the information conveyed to the officer in charge of a police station or a complaint made to the magistrate need not mention the name of the police officers who the complaint believes in the perpetrator of the offence) it is not necessary to pronounce on whether the State/the police establishment or a police officer is immune from the obligation to disclose the identity (of a police officer who had committed an act causing death) to a person aggrieved by such death to effectively seek justice.“Whether the investigation officer is required to disclose the name of the police officers who are involved in an operation resulting in civil casualty, when a request for such information is lodged by an individual, is an issue not within the spectrum of the issues falling for our determination herein,” said the HC.However, the court said that the obligation to disclose to the investigation officer the identity of the police officers involved was absolute and there was no immunity whatsoever from this.