FIR not an encyclopaedia; all aspects of Hubballi migrant labourer’s encounter killing under probe: CID in Karnataka HC

Sondhi further said, “The deceased was not handcuffed at the time of the incident.” He argued that the Government should not hold a brief for the police officers.

Responding, Shetty said that an FIR was registered soon after the incident and that Supreme Court directions made in the PUCL vs State of Maharashtra case of 2014, to be followed in such cases, were being followed in “letter and spirit”. He also said the case had been transferred to the CID following the Supreme Court’s directions and orders of the high court.

The PIL wanted an FIR registered against policemen involved in the Hubballi encounter killing and the Supreme Court directions for cases of death caused by police actions to be followed.

On going through the FIR and the statement of the policemen, the bench orally questioned the Government, “Requirement is that if there is an incident, it must be stated and investigated. The allegation of an alleged police encounter is not even there. What has been stated in the FIR is that he was in custody, and a crowd gathered, and he voluntarily alighted from the van to get his Aadhar card and then allegedly started throwing stones, and he was shot at.”

Shetty replied, “The FIR is not an encyclopaedia, and it is a version of the station house officer. During further investigation, all these aspects would be looked into.”

Shetty also suggested that the petition was not maintainable and that the petitioners had to approach the session court for redressal of grievances.

‘Gross incompetence you cannot even deny’

Chief Justice Bakhru said, “The idea is there should be a rule of law. The facts suggest there was a confession of that (deceased) person. He had confessed to a very heinous crime, and the crowd’s emotions were running high. In that this incident has happened, if it does not show culpability, it shows gross incompetence and that you cannot even deny.”

Shetty then suggested that a judicial inquiry be held into the incident. He pointed out to the court that an application seeking a judicial inquiry was already made by the Government before the magistrate court concerned but it was rejected.

“Let a judicial inquiry be conducted and the truth will come out. See our conduct milords. We are not trying to shield anyone or anything. Ultimately, it cannot be concluded at this stage what is the truth,” Shetty said.

The bench orally said, “Your investigation cannot be for a theft when somebody has died, someone has been shot. The first start point should be what the facts show.”

As it emphasised that the investigation “has to proceed towards what has been stated here”, Shetty responded, “Sorry to say that offenders have more rights.”

The court posted the matter for further hearing on Friday.