‘No credible basis’: Telangana HC upholds dropping of murder charges against 2 cops in 2003 Zaheerabad firing case

The revisional court’s order had earlier set aside a magistrate’s decision to take cognizance and issue process against the two officers, P Sreedhar Reddy and N Gopal, and this was challenged by the petitioner, Lateef Mohammed Khan.

Theft and an altercation

The case stems from an incident on the intervening night of May 20 and 21, 2003, in Zaheerabad, around 100 km from Hyderabad, where Gopal, a constable, and other police personnel were on patrol and were informed of thieves having entered certain shops. Upon reaching the spot, an altercation occurred inside a shop. It was alleged that one Mohammed Shafi, who was caught in the act of theft, snatched Gopal’s rifle and pointed it at him. Reddy then fired four rounds, resulting in Shafi’s death.

The post-mortem report confirmed death due to multiple bullet injuries. An initial magisterial inquiry conducted by the collector and district magistrate concluded on September 30, 2004, that the firing by Reddy was justified and was in protection of life and not excessive. The Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) re-investigation in 2008 also concluded by dropping the action, recording that the firing was an act of private defence falling under Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner later filed a protest plea, which led the magistrate to take cognizance and issue process against the two officers on September 30, 2019. This order was subsequently set aside by the Principal Sessions Judge of Medak at Sangareddy (the revisional court) on September 24, 2021, in a criminal revision petition filed by the two respondents.

After hearing both sides, Justice Sridevi focused on the lack of credible material to sustain the murder charge and the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for prosecuting the police officers. “The Magistrate is not justified in issuing process merely on the basis of the protest petition,” the judge stated, adding that the order of the magistrate must be founded “on prima facie material capable of sustaining the allegations”.

Justice Sridevi emphasised the importance of the protection under Section 197 of the CrPC, quoting the principle laid down by the Supreme Court: “If in doing an official duty a policeman has acted in excess of duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the fact that the act alleged is in excess of duty will not be ground enough to deprive the policeman of the protection of government sanction for initiation of criminal action against him.”

The court made a direct observation on the insufficiency of the material, stating: “The Magistrate, before taking cognizance, is required to record reasons demonstrating that the material placed before her was such that a reasonable person could infer the existence of a prima facie case warranting trial.”

‘Mixed question of fact and law’

Addressing the petitioner’s contention regarding the excessive use of force (firing four rounds), the court stated: “It is well settled that whether the force used in self-defence was excessive is a mixed question of fact and law, to be determined in the light of the totality of circumstances; such a question ordinarily warrants a full-fledged trial only where there exists credible material forming a reasonable basis to believe that the accused exceeded the limits of self-defence. In the present case, the material on record does not disclose any such credible basis.”

The high court observed that the magistrate failed to consider the entire material on record, including the CB-CID final report and the magisterial inquiry report, both of which indicated private defence.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the material strongly indicates the incident occurred in circumstances of private defence while the police officers were discharging their official duties, and the revisional court was justified in setting aside the magistrate’s order.