Over seven months after the accused arrested in the Badlapur sexual assault case was shot dead while being transported in a police vehicle, the Maharashtra Police, after being repeatedly slammed by the Bombay High Court for inaction, said on Wednesday that it would register an FIR by May 3. A look at the developments that led to the decision:
The alleged sexual assault on two four-year-old kindergarten students took place on August 12 and 13 at the washroom of their school in Badlapur in Thane district.
The custodial death incident dates back to September 23 last year, when a 23-year-old, who was arrested in the case, was shot while he was in police custody. The police had claimed to have shot the accused in self-defence, alleging that after one of his hands was freed so he could drink water, he snatched one of their guns and opened fire.
The state Criminal Investigation Department (CID) was tasked to probe the custodial death and took over from the Thane Police. The state government also appointed a judicial commission headed by a former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to investigate the “encounter” claims.
What did the Bombay High Court question?
On September 24 last year, the father of the deceased approached the Bombay High Court seeking an SIT probe into the alleged ‘fake encounter’ of his son and sought registration of an FIR against the police officers.
The next day, a bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj K Chavan (retired on February 21) picked holes in the “retaliatory firing” claim by the police and said “this cannot be termed as an encounter” and the same “could have been avoided”.
On October 3 last year, the high court ordered an expedited magisterial inquiry into the custodial death inquiry under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Story continues below this ad
In November and December last year, the bench slammed the state CID for discrepancies and shortcomings and said that it was a “matter of concern” how the probe team could take it “so lightly”.
What did the magistrate’s inquiry report find?
Months after the Bombay High Court raised several questions over the police’s claims, on January 20, it was informed that, as per the magistrate’s inquiry report dated January 17, five police officers, including a police driver, were “responsible for the custodial death”.
The officers were identified as Senior Police Inspector Sanjay Shinde (Thane Crime Branch), Assistant Police Inspector Nilesh More, Head Constables Abhijeet More and Harish Tawade, and driver Satish Ramnath Khatal with constable rank.
In the Accidental Death Report (ADR), the magistrate Ashok R Shendge found that there were “no fingerprints” on the pistol and “no gunshot residues were found on handwash, handcuffs and clothes of the deceased”.
Story continues below this ad
It stated that the use of force by the police was not justified and found that police personnel were in such a position that they could easily handle the situation.
Citing Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports, the magistrate observed that the ‘false encounter’ allegations made by parents of the deceased “found substance”.
How did the HC insist that CID lodge an FIR against the police officers?
On January 20, the high court directed the Maharashtra government’s CID to register an FIR against the police officers indicted as per the findings of the magistrate and begin further proceedings as per law.
Next month, the high court again questioned why the state had not registered an FIR. The bench said it would not close the case despite the parents of the deceased showing reluctance to pursue the plea due to personal difficulties. It appointed senior advocate Manjula Rao as amicus curiae to assist it in the matter.
Story continues below this ad
Why did the government show reluctance?
On being repeatedly questioned over non-registration of FIR against the concerned police officers, the Maharashtra government, through senior advocate Amit Desai, appointed as special public prosecutor, had argued that its CID was probing the custodial death in an “independent” manner and it will decide on the outcome after the probe concludes. Desai had claimed that the magisterial inquiry that went beyond its scope cannot be the basis of an FIR, while the CID was already examining all angles in the matter.
What did HC rule in its verdict?
The high court, through its April 7 judgment, directed the Maharashtra Police to set up an SIT supervised by Joint Commissioner of Police Lakhmi Gautam to probe the custodial death. It observed that “the refusal to investigate a crime erodes public faith in justice and allows perpetrators to go unpunished”.
It had directed that the police should follow the principles laid down by the Supreme Court earlier, including registration of a FIR, and “ensure that the case, which prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, is taken to its logical end”.
How state was compelled to act
On April 25, nearly 20 days after its verdict, the high court rapped the state CID for failing to transfer investigation papers to the Joint CP within two days of the verdict and not registering the FIR.
Story continues below this ad
The court termed it a “brazen violation” of its directives and warned the CID of initiating contempt proceedings for not complying with its orders. After the high court rap, the state CID Chief Prashant Burde said the case papers will be handed over forthwith
On April 30, the high court questioned the state’s claim that an FIR can be registered only after going through the magistrate’s enquiry documents or if aggrieved parents of the deceased had come forward to file a complaint.
The high court said there was no need to do so as the cognisable offence was disclosed as per its verdict and warned of contempt proceedings against the SIT.
An hour later, the state lawyer informed the high court that an FIR will be filed by May 3 at the instance of the Crime Branch officer who will act as complainant in the case.
