News18»India
3-MIN READ

Delhi Court Upholds Order For Lodging Of FIR Against Police Officer In Alleged Fake Encounter Case

Delhi Court Upholds Order For Lodging Of FIR Against Police Officer In Alleged Fake Encounter Case

A Delhi court has upheld a magistrate court's order which directed the registration of an FIR against a police official in a case related to an alleged fake encounter in which a 25-year-old man was killed in Outer Delhi's Narela area. The magistrate court had in 2015 directed the police to lodge an FIR against then constable Baljit for allegedly killing one Amit Dahiya, while the latter was fleeing after robbing a car.

New Delhi: A Delhi court has upheld a magistrate court’s order which directed the registration of an FIR against a police official in a case related to an alleged fake encounter in which a 25-year-old man was killed in Outer Delhi’s Narela area. The magistrate court had in 2015 directed the police to lodge an FIR against then constable Baljit for allegedly killing one Amit Dahiya, while the latter was fleeing after robbing a car.

Additional Sessions Judge Jitendra Kumar Mishra said there was no infirmity in the 2015 order. The court also referred to the post-mortem report of Dahiya and observed that there were 14 injuries on his body and some of them required further explanation.

“The trial court has held that there is enough material to direct for registration of an FIR. It is not disputed that son of the respondent number 2 (Dahiya’s mother) died by the bullet fired by the revisionist (Baljit). Now, the question arises whether the act was in discharge of official duty or not; it required thorough investigation. “Moreover, there were many injuries which were caused by blunt force/object which require explanation, that is, the reasons for all such injuries. This fact of injuries blunt in nature has been clearly mentioned in the post-mortem report. “If those injuries were caused by the revisionist/police official, then, certainly, in those circumstances, there was exceed of power by the officials in discharge of his official duties. Moreover, such circumstances have also to be looked into, under which revisionist fired upon the vital parts of the deceased such as chest and abdomen,” the court said in its order passed on September 28. The court noted that Baljit was under the cover of immunity provided to him by his office but the fact remained whether the acts committed by him were in good faith or motivated.

It further said that whether the bullet and other injuries upon Dahiya caused by the police official was part of his duty or not can only be explained during the trial. It, however, granted an opportunity to Baljit to raise the question of the required sanction during the trial in accordance with the material that has come on record and to lead defence evidence to prove that whatever actions were committed by him were part of his official duties which were necessary as per the norms and he did not exceed the limits.

During the hearing, advocate Sandeep Kaushik, appearing for Dahiya’s mother, said the perusal of the post- mortem conducted by a medical board of three doctors had established that there were 14 injuries on Dahiya, four were firearm injuries and 10 injuries were found caused by blunt force. Kaushik further argued that the report established that Dahiya was mercilessly beaten by Baljit with some blunt object.

He added that according to then constable Baljit, Dahiya fired one bullet at the constable which hit on his thigh and in his private defence, he fired four bullets at Dahiya. Kaushik alleged that the acts of Baljit were not an act of self-defence, but it was clearly a case of murder because firing four bullets and all on the vital parts of the body cannot be an act of self defence. Baljit’s counsel argued that the magistrate court’s order was illegal, misconceived, improper and bad in the eyes of law.

He claimed that the investigation conducted in the case had clearly illustrated that no offence was made out against Baljit.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor


Next Story
Loading...