Case title:
Devendra Pandey and others v. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I., along with connected matters
Date of Order:
15.12.2022
Bench:
Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav
Parties:
Petitioner- Devendra Pandey and others
Respondent- State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I.
SUBJECT
The 1991 Pilibhit Encounter case, in which 10 Sikhs were killed in an alleged staged encounter while being misidentified as terrorists, resulted in the conviction of 43 Uttar Police personnel by the Allahabad High Court under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code- Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder:
Suppose the act that results in the death is done to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to result in death. In that case, the offender will be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to ten years, and they will also be subject to a fine. If the act that results in the death is done to cause death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to result in death, then the offender will also be subject to
OVERVIEW
In this instance, the police officials/appellants (then 47 in number) intercepted a bus transporting pilgrims/passengers (on July 12–13, 1991) on the assumption that there were some hard-core terrorists from the "Khalistan Liberation Front" inside. The police then transported 10 to 11 young Sikhs to a police bus, where they later executed them at three different locations.
The trial court declared after the case's trial in April 2016 that the appellants had kidnapped 10 Sikh youngsters as part of a criminal conspiracy, killed them in a staged encounter, and then created various documents to pass off their murders as encounters.
They were consequently found guilty under Section 120-B, in conjunction with Sections 364, 365, 218 and 117 I.P.C. They went to the High Court to contest their conviction.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the trial court rightly convicted the accused?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
The Court noted that the appellants had admitted that they had eliminated or killed ten Sikh terrorists in a confrontation during the incident out of self-defence. However, the Court also pointed out that the medical evidence did not support the appellants' theory of self-defence.
The Court also took note of the appellants' admission in their 313 CrPC Statement that the dead individuals were active in the Tarai region of district Pilibhit and the surrounding areas in support of the Liberation of Khalistan and were killed by the appellants during police encounters.
Only a few of the claimed terrorists' criminal histories were disclosed during the trial, which was significant. It was suggested that because the other dead were the friends of the four dead (alleged terrorists), they were also murdered in the encounter, but the Court rejected this claim.
However, it should be emphasised that the Court did find that the prosecution had failed to establish the facts that the police had kidnapped or abducted 10–11 Sikhs, split them into three groups, and executed them in three different locations after engaging in a criminal conspiracy.
CONCLUSION
Although there was no animosity between the appellants/police personnel and the deceased people, and the appellants were public servants with the advancement of public justice as their goal, the Court determined that they exceeded the scope of their legal authority and exposed themselves to the rigours of the legal system.
As a result, the appellant's conviction and sentence under Sections 302/120-B, 364/120-B, 365/120-B, 218/120-B, and 117/120-B of the I.P.C. were overturned, and they were found guilty under Section 304 Part I of the I.P.C. and given a seven-year rigorous prison sentence as well as a fine of Rs. 10,000.
The district Pilibhit local police initially investigated this allegedly fictitious incident and submitted a closure report. Nevertheless, the investigation of the case was given to the C.B.I. by a Supreme Court directive.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
