1. Introduction
Encounters refer to situations where the police use excessive force or engage in extra-judicial killings, violating the rights of individuals and bypassing due process. It is a police dictionary term commonly used in police departments, but in law, there is no statutory definition of this word. [1]
Critics argue that police officers frequently use the same justification: that the accused were taken to the crime scene for reconstruction when they allegedly snatched weapons and tried to escape, forcing police to shoot them in "self-defence."
This article examines the legal framework governing police encounters, the circumstances in which a police encounter is considered lawful or unlawful, and the procedural safeguards required to ensure a fair, independent, and impartial investigation into every encounter death.
2. Recent Incidents of Police Encounters
2.1 Bharat Tiwari Encounter
Bharat Tiwari was allegedly killed in a disputed police encounter that later raised questions about the authenticity of the police narrative. Human rights concerns, demands for an independent investigation, and allegations of excessive use of force brought the case into public debate on fake encounters and police accountability. [2]
2.2 Ishrat Jahan Encounter Case
Ishrat Jahan, a 19-year-old college student, was killed in an encounter in 2004 in Gujarat. The Gujarat police claimed that Jahan was a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist organisation, and was killed in self-defence. However, an investigation by the CBI found that the encounter was staged and that Jahan and three others were killed in cold blood. In 2019, a special CBI court discharged the accused in the case, citing a lack of evidence. [3]
2.3 Akshay Shinde Encounter (2024)
This incident in Maharashtra reignited debate over the legality of encounters, reflecting a persistent pattern of police taking justice into their own hands. [4]
3. Statutory Provisions Relating to Encounter
There is no specific statutory provision that regulates the authority of police encounters. An encounter is legally justified only when it amounts to a lawful use of force during arrest.
In the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Sections 33 to 45 deal with private defence of body and property. According to these provisions, "Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of private defence," but such defence must be proportionate and used only against an imminent threat. [5]
In the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Section 43 states that police may use necessary force while making an arrest. However, causing death is permissible only in very limited circumstances. [6]
4. Constitutional Safeguards against Encounters
The Indian Constitution provides several fundamental rights that protect individuals from arbitrary or excessive state action:
Article 21: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."[7]
Article 22(1): "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice." [8]
Article 20(3): "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." [9]
5. Supreme Court Judgments on Encounters
5.1 PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014) [10]
This case examined the killing of 99 alleged criminals in police encounters in Mumbai from 1995 to 1997. To promote transparency, fairness, and accountability, the Supreme Court laid down 16 guidelines, including:
Tip-off Record: Police must document any intelligence or tip-off, though specific details of the suspect need not be disclosed publicly.
Registration of FIR: An FIR must be immediately registered after an encounter resulting in death and forwarded to the court without delay.
Independent Investigation: Investigation must be conducted by the Crime Investigation Department or a separate police station.
Magisterial Inquiry: A magisterial inquiry is mandatory in all encounter deaths, and the report must be submitted to the judicial magistrate.
Human Rights Commission: The National or State Human Rights Commission must be informed.
Medical Aid: The injured victim must receive prompt medical attention, and the magistrate or medical officer must record their statement with a certificate of fitness.
Avoid Delay: The FIR along with evidence like panchanama and sketches must be forwarded to the court promptly.
Final Report: The final report must be submitted to the competent authority.
Inform Kin: The next of kin of the deceased must be informed immediately.
Bi-annual Reports: The DGP must submit bi-annual reports to the NHRC in a prescribed format.
Prompt Action: If an encounter is found unjustified, disciplinary proceedings must be initiated under the BNS, 2023, and the officers involved should be suspended.
Compensation: Compensation must be paid to the dependents of the deceased.
Surrender of Weapons: Involved officers must surrender their weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis.
Legal Aid: Legal aid must be provided to the families of police officers.
Promotion: No immediate promotions or awards shall be given to involved officers.
Grievance Redressal: If procedures are not followed, the victim's family may approach the Sessions Judge.
5.2 Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand (2012)[11]
In this case, the Supreme Court observed that a "fake encounter is nothing but a state-sponsored terrorism."
5.3 Hathras "Staged Encounter" Case (Uttar Pradesh, 2024)
Two men were arrested and allegedly injured in a police encounter.
An internal police inquiry later found serious lapses and concluded that the criminal case lacked evidence.
The court ordered their release, and the police officials involved were suspended. [12]
6. Questions Arising from Police Encounters
The following questions often arise in encounter cases and cast doubt on the police narrative:
a) How did the accused manage to snatch a police officer's weapon without the officer making any physical effort to prevent or retrieve it?
b) If several police officers were present, why were they unable to control or apprehend a single accused without causing his death? This casts doubt on the necessity, proportionality, and legality of the force used.
c) If only a single shot was fired, the investigation must determine how it proved fatal, the trajectory of the bullet, the distance from which it was fired, and whether the use of such force was necessary and proportionate. These questions can only be answered through an independent forensic investigation.[13]
7. Reasons for Police Encounters
i) Need for Swift Justice
The Indian criminal justice system is often criticised for delays and a large number of pending cases, with proceedings running over decades. Some criminals exploit these delays and escape punishment. [14]
ii) Political Populism
Governments often reward officers involved in encounters with promotions and awards to showcase law and order, especially during elections. This is presented as "instant justice" or "zero tolerance" governance. However, in the eyes of the law, it is not legal; even the accused have constitutional rights to life and personal liberty. The famous maxim holds: "Hate the sin, not the sinner." [15]
iii) Lack of Proper Training and Accountability
In many cases, police officers lack training in handling criminals and interacting with the public. Their behaviour often becomes unacceptable, and they use unreasonable force against citizens. [16]
8. How to Regulate Police Encounters
a) Police Training: State governments should provide proper training to police officers in human rights, de-escalation techniques, negotiation, and crisis management.
b) Use of Technology:
Mandatory body-worn cameras during high-risk operations.
Dashboard cameras in police vehicles.
GPS tracking of police teams.
Preservation of digital evidence with tamper-proof storage. [17]
c) Implement Supreme Court Guidelines Properly: State governments must enforce the guidelines laid down in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014) to ensure fair investigation. [18]
d) Strengthen Accountability: There must be clear accountability for failure to produce an accused alive in court. Police officers must be held responsible for violating procedures.
e) Strengthen Forensic Investigation: Use forensic science, ballistics, DNA analysis, and digital evidence instead of relying on confessional or encounter-based policing. [19]
9. Conclusion
Police encounters may be justified only when conducted within the limits of the law and out of necessity. Fake encounters are sometimes socially accepted in the name of instant justice, but they are legally unacceptable. They are extrajudicial killings that violate constitutional guarantees and undermine the rule of law. Justice in a democracy must be delivered through fair investigation, due process, judicial oversight, and accountability—not by bypassing the legal system.
Reference
[1]: There is no statutory definition of "encounter" in Indian law; it is a term of police practice. See generally, *Black’s Law Dictionary*, 11th ed. (2019).
[2]: Sobhana K. Nair, "Who Is Bharat Tiwari and Why His Death by Police Encounter Sparked Outrage in Bihar, Case Reaches SC," *The Week*, 22 June 2026.
[3]: Anmol Sharma, "Understanding Encounter Killings by Indian Police," *Rest The Case*, 13 Apr. 2023.
[4]: Prateek Chakraborty, "Badlapur Sex Abuse Accused Akshay Shinde Killed in Police Encounter: A Timeline of Events," *India Today*, 25 Sept. 2024.
[5]: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, §§ 33–45.
[6]: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 43
.[7]: Constitution of India, Art. 21.
[8]: Constitution of India, Art. 22(1).
[9]: Constitution of India, Art. 20(3).
[10]: *People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra*, (2014) 10 SCC 635.
[11]: *Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.*, (2012) 12 SCC 72.
[12]: Reported in various news outlets, e.g., *The Hindu*, "Uttar Pradesh Police Suspended in Hathras Encounter Case," 2024.
[13]: Forensic investigation is essential to determine the facts in encounter cases; see generally, *Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology*, 27th ed. (2021).
[14]: National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), *Crime in India – 2022*, Table on pendency of criminal cases.
[15]: See generally, N. R. Madhava Menon, *Criminal Justice India Series* (2002), for analysis of political influence on policing.
[16]: Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, *Public Order: Challenges of Policing* (2007), recommending human rights training for police.
[17]: Police Reforms Commission (Solomon Committee) recommendations on use of technology in policing.
[18]: The guidelines in *PUCL v. Maharashtra* are binding and must be followed by all states.
[19]: Forensic evidence is increasingly relied upon by courts to verify police narratives; see *State of Maharashtra v. Damu*, (2000) 6 SCC 269.