Badlapur sexual assault: Months after HC judge picked holes in ‘retaliatory firing’ claims, magistrate’s report concurs

On Monday, the Bombay High Court was informed that the magistrate inquiry held that if Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports were considered, the “false encounter” allegations made by the parents of the deceased had substance. The high court directed the Maharashtra government to register an FIR against the officers.

The 23-year-old janitor arrested in August last year for the alleged sexual assault of two minor girls at a school in Badlapur in Thane district was shot dead while he was being transported in a police vehicle on September 23 last year. The police had claimed he was killed in retaliation after he snatched an officer’s service weapon and fired three rounds, injuring an officer. The police had also said the man was initially handcuffed but after he requested a glass of water, one of his hands was freed.

On September 25 last year, the high court bench had pointed out that “four trained police officers” were accompanying the accused and they should have tried to disarm and overpower him first. The court questioned how the police fired on the temple or head of the deceased while as per ordinary practice or Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), they should have fired on the leg in case of retaliatory firing.

The high court judges had also questioned whether four trained police officers, including those involved in encounters in the past, could not have overpowered the accused, who was not trained in operating firearms, and had said the death could have been avoided.

In his report, inquiry magistrate Ashok R Shendge observed that based on the panchnama of recreation of the crime scene, the four police personnel could have easily handled the situation as there was less distance between them and the accused. “The alleged vehicle was in moving position, therefore they can definitely be in position to control the situation by avoiding death of the deceased,” the report states.

Justice Chavan, who claimed to have experience of using a pistol, had earlier asked if the deceased knew how to unlock the pistol. When the state lawyer had submitted that the weapon was not locked and the deceased tried to pull the upper part of the magazine, Justice Chavan found it “hard to believe” and said the same required strength.

The judge had said that a layperson cannot fire a pistol unless he or she is trained. The state had submitted that it was an old pistol and the deceased could get it as the officer was in plainclothes with his gun tucked in the left side of his waist, to which the judge had pulled up the police for being “negligent” and “careless”.

On November 18, the bench had also found it to be “unusual” that there was a lack of gunshot residue on the deceased’s hands and there were no fingerprints on the bottle from which he allegedly drank water.

The magistrate’s report found that there were “no fingerprints” on the pistol allegedly used by the deceased and “no gunshot residues were found on handwash, handcuffs and clothes of the deceased”. It found that the use of force by the police was not justified and the police’s claim of right of private defence was suspicious.