Holding

The Court laid down detailed, binding guidelines for the investigation of police encounters, treating them as law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined petitions filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties challenging the authenticity of nearly 99 police encounters in Mumbai between 1995 and 1997, which resulted in about 135 deaths. The Court was asked to direct the State of Maharashtra to investigate these encounters, register FIRs, and frame guidelines for future investigations. Relying on constitutional guarantees under Articles 21, 141 and 20, as well as prior case law on custodial violence and fake encounters, the Court held that extra‑judicial killings must be investigated independently, transparently and promptly. It issued a comprehensive set of procedural guidelines covering registration of intelligence, FIR filing, preservation of evidence, independent inquiry by a senior police team, magisterial inquest, post‑mortem requirements, reporting to courts and human‑rights commissions, and compensation. The guidelines were declared law under Article 141, thereby binding on all police forces in India.

Issues considered

The procedural steps to be followed in investigating police encounters resulting in death or grievous injury.
Whether the High Court's guidelines and the petitioners' demands for independent investigations are constitutionally required.
The applicability of Sections 174, 175, 176, 157, 158, 173, 190 and 357‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to police encounters.
The role of the NHRC/State Human Rights Commissions in overseeing such investigations.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 157, s. 158, s. 173, s. 174, s. 175, s. 176, s. 190, s. 357-A
Constitution of Indias. 141, s. 20, s. 21
Coroners Act, 1871
Human Rights Act, 1993

Subjects

police encountersextra‑judicial killingsinvestigation guidelineshuman rightsArticle 21Criminal Procedure Codemagisterial inquiryindependent investigationNHRCcompensation

Judgment

[2014] 12 S.C.R. 54

A PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES & ANR.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 1999)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2014
B
[R.M. LODHA, CJI AND
R.F. ALI NARIMAN, JJ.]

Police encounters - Investigation - Procedure to be
C followed in investigating police encounters - Issue as regards
genuineness or otherwise of nearly 99. encounters between
the Mumbai police and the alleged criminals resulting in death
of about 135 persons between 1995 and 1997 - Direction by
the High Court to the police of the State to follow certain
D guidelines - SLP thereagainst as a/so other matters - Held:
It is the constitutional duty of this Court to put in place certain
guidelines adherence to which would help in bringing justice
to the perpetrators of the crime who take law in their own hands
- In a society governed by rule of law, it is imperative that ·
E extra-judicial killings -are properly and independently
investigated so that justice may be done - Certain guideiines
issued to be followed in the matters of investigating police
encounters in the cases of death as the stariCJard procedure
for thorough, effective and independent investigation - The
F same would be applicable to grievous injury cases in police
encounter - Said guidelines to be. treated as law declared u/
Art. 141 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.174, 175,
176- Constitution oflndia, 1950 '-Arts. 21, 141 - Guidelines.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 1996 (10) Suppl.
G SCR 284: (1997) 1SCC416; Om Prakash and Ors. v. State
of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home,.
Ranchi-1 and Anr. 2012 (9) SCR 125: (2012) 12 SCC 72;
Chaitanya Kalbagh and Ors. v. State of UP. and Ors. (1989)

H 54
•
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 55
OF MAHARASHTRA
2 SCC 314; R.S. Sodhi, Advocate v. State of U.P. and Ors. A
1994 Supp (1) SCC 143; Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant
Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. State through Central
Bureau of Investigation 2011 (6) SCR 138: (2011) 6 SCC 1;
Prakash Kadam and Ors. v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta
and Anr. 2011 (6) SCR 800 : (2011) 6 SCC 189; B.G. B
Verghese v. Union of India and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 525;
Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana through the Home
Secretary, Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat,
Chandigarh and Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 290 - referred to.
Case Law Reference: c
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 Referred to Para 8
2012 (9) SCR 125 Referred to Para 9·
(1989) 2 sec 314 Referred to Para 17 D
1994 supp (1) sec 143 Referred to Para 18
2011 (6) SCR 138 Referred to Para 19
2011 (6 ) SCR 800 Referred to Para 20
E
(2013) 11 sec 525 Referred to Para 22
(2013) 14 sec 290 Referred to Para 23

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1255 of 1999. F

From the Judgment & Order dated 22.02.1999-
25.02.1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1146 of 1997.

WITH
G

Crl.A.No. 1256 & 1367 of 1999

W.P. (c) No. 316.of 2008.
H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 12 S.C.R.

A Contempt Petiton (C) No. 47 of 2011 in W.P. (Civil) No. 316
of 2008.

T.C. (C) No. 27 of 2011.

Manjit Singh, Suryanarayana Singh, AAGs, Shekhar
B Naphade, B.H. Marlapalle, Gopal Sankaranayanan,
Vikramaditya, Rohit K. Singh, Somnadri Goud, Sanjana
Ramachandran (for Parekh & Co.) P.N, Puri, Vishwajit Singh,
Triloki Nath Razdan, Usha Kejriwal, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Salvin
Raja, Charudatta, Mahindrakar, Ajit Wagh, Jatinder Kumar
C Bhatia, Mukesh Verma, Nupur Choudhary, Vivekta Singh (for
Kamal Mohan Gupta), K. Enatoli Serna, Amit Kumar Singh,
Balaji Srinivasan, Hemantika Wahi, Puja Singh, V.G.
Pr(!gasam, S. Aristotle, Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Sapam
Biswajit Meitei, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Pragati Neekhra,
D K.V. Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, Amit Anand Tiwari, Avinash
Tripathi, Subramaniam Prasad, Varun Shankar, Anip Sachthey,
Anil Katiyar, G. Prakash Gopal Singh, Kamini Jaiswal, Sanjay
Parikh, Tara Chandra Sharma, Arupatham Aruna & Co.,
Shreekant N. Terdal, D.S. Mahra, lrshad Ahmad, Ranjan
E Mukherjee, D. Bharathi Reddy, Krishnanand Pandeya, Anil
Shrivastav, Sanjay R. Hegde, D. Mahesh Babu, Corporate Law
Group, Anitha Shenoy, C.D. Singh, 'P.V. Yogeswaran, Kuldip
Singh, S. Thananjayan, Balaji Srinivasan, Gunnam
Venkateswara Rao, Liz Mathew, Sunil Fernandes, Ashok
F Panigrahi, Dr. Nafis A. Siddiqui, Yash Pal Dhingra, B. Balaji,
Samir Ail Khan, Ashok Kumar Singh, B. Krishna Prasad,
Kamlendra Mishra, Dr. Kailash Chand, Amit Anand Tiwari,
Sudarshan Rajan, Praveen Agrawal, Karanjawala & Co.,
COAC, Abhisth Kumar, Rajiv Nanda, ANil Chopra, Shibashish
Misra, Shobha for the appearing parties.
G
Dr. Surat Singh (Respondent-In-Person).

The Order of the Court was delivered by

H
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 57
OF MAHARASHTRA
R.M. LODHA, CJI. 1. On 03.09.2014, the arguments A
were heard on the question of the procedure to be followed in
investigating police encounters. The present order is confined
to the above question.

2. In the three writ petitions, which were filed by People's B
Union for Civil Liberties (for short, "PUCL") before the Bombay
High Court, the issue of genuineness or otherwise of nearly 99
encounters between the Mumbai.police and the alleged
criminals resulting in death of about 135 persons between
1995 and 1997 .was raised. Inter alia, the following prayers c
were made:

(i) directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to furnish the
particulars regarding the number of persons killed in last
one year in police encounters, their names, addresses, the
0
circumstances in which they were killed, the inquiries, if
any, conducted with respect to the said killings and any
other relevant information and the action taken, if any, by
them; ·

(ii) directing the respondent No. 1 i.e. State of Maharashtra E
to register offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
and other enactments against the police officers found
prima-facie responsible for the violations of fundamental
rights and other provisions of the Indian penal Code and
other relevant enactments; F
(iii) directing the 4th respondent viz., the Coroner of
Mumbai to submit a detailed report and the details of
action taken by him under the provisions .of the Coroners
Act 1871; G

(iv) directing an appropriate authority to enquire into and
report to this Court in all the police encounters that have
taken place not only in the city of Mumbai but also in the
H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 12 S.C.R.

A entire State of Maharashtra in which persons have been
killed or injured in police encounters;

(v) directing the State of Maharashtra to constitute the
Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission as ·
B provided under Section 21 and other provisions contained
in the Human Rights Act 1993,

(vi) directing the State Government to frame appropriate
guidelines governing planning and carrying out encounters
for the purpose of protection of life and liberty guaranteed
c under Article 21 read with Article 14 of th'e Constitution of
India.

3. It is not necessary to notice the facts of the three writ
petitions in detail. Suffice it to say that while considering the
D above prayers, the High Court directed the following guidelines
to be followed necessarily and mandatorily by the police in the
State:
1. Whenever the respondents-police are on the receipt of
intelligence or a tip off about the criminal movements and
E
activities pertaining to the commission of.grave crimes, it
shall be entered into a case diary. If the receiving authority
is the police officer of a particular police station, the
relevant entry has to be made in the General diary and if
the receiving authority is the higher police officer, the
F
relevant entry to the said effect has to be made by a
separate diary kept and provided therefor and then pursue
further in accordance wiih the procedural law.
2. Regardiag any encounter operation is over and persons
G are killed or injured and the same is reported to either orally
or writing to the police in furtherance of Section 154 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, it shall be registered in Crime
Register of that particular police station and that further the
said First Information Report along with copies to the
H higher officials and the Court in original shall be sent with
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 59
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
immediately without any delay whatsoever through proper A
channel so as to reach to the Court without any delay at
all. A report, as enjoined under Section 157(1) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, shall also be followed
necessarily by the concerned police station.
B
3. After setting the law in motion by registering the First
Information Report in the Crime Register by the concerned
police officer of the particular police station, the
investigating staff of the police shall take such steps by
deputing the man or men to get the scene of crime guarded
so as to avoid or obliterate or disfigure the existing C
physical features of the scene of occurrence or the
operation encounter. This guarding of the scene of
. occurrence shall continue till the inspection of occurrence
takes place by the investigating staff of the police and
preparation of spot panchnama and the recovery D
panchnama.

4. The police officer who takes part in the operation
encounter or the investigating officer of the concerned
police ·station, shall take al.I necessary efforts and E
arrangements to preserve finger prints of the criminals or
the dreaded gangster of the weapons who handled
immediately after the said criminal was brought down to
the ground and incapacitated and that the said fingerprints,
if properly taken and preserved, must be sent to the F
Chemical Analyzer for comparison of the fingerprints of the
dead body to be taken.

5. The materials which are found on the scene of
occurrence or the operation encounter and such of the
materials including the blood stained earth and blood G
stained materials and the sample earth and other
moveable physical features, shall also be recovered by the
investigating staff under the cover of recovery panchnama
attested by the independent witnesses.
H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 12 S.C.R.

A 6. To fix the exact date and actual place of occurrence in
which operation encounter has taken place, a rough sketch
regarding the topography of the existing physical features
of the said place shall be drawn by the police or the
investigating staff of the police either by themselves or by
B the help of the staff of the Survey Department even during
the spot panchnama is prepared.

7. The inquest examination shall be conducted by the
investigating staff of the police on the spot itself without any
delay and statements of the inquest witnesses are to be
c recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the inquest panchnama shall be sent along
with the above case record prepared along with the First
Information Report without any delay whatsoever to. the
Court.
D
8. If the injured criminals during the operation encounter
are found alive, not only that they should be provided
medical aid immediately but also arrangements and
attempts shall be taken by the police to record their
E statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure
Code either by a Magistrate, if possible and if not, by the
Medical Officer concerned duly attested by the hospital
staff mentioning the time and factum that while recording
such statements the injured were in a state of position that
F they will be able to give statements and the connected
certificates by the doctors appended thereto.

9. After the examination of further witnesses and
completing the investigation inclusive of securing the
accused or accused persons, the concerned police is
G directed to send final report to the Court of competent ·
jurisdiction as required under Section 173 of the Criminal
Procedure Code for further proceeding.

10. Either in sending the First Information Report or sending
H with the general diary entry referred in the guideline nos.
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 61
OF MAHARASHTRA [RM. LODHA, CJI.]

1 and 2, the concerned police shall avoid any iota of delay A
under any circumstances whatsoever so also rough sketch
showing the topography of the scene and the recovery of
the materials and the blood stained materials with the
sample earth and the blood stained earth with the other
documents viz, the spot panchnama, ·recovery panchnama B
- all seems very vital documents - the respondents-police
are also directed to send them to the Court of concerned
jurisdiction .without any delay.

4. PUCL was not satisfied with the adequacy of the reliefs
granted by the High Court and, consequently, it filed three SLPs C
against the judgment and order dated 22-25.02.1999. Few
other matters have been connected with these three petitions.

5. After initial grant of leave, the matters came up for
consideration before the two-Judge Bench on 05.11.2008. On D
that day, ML Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants placed before the Court the guidelines issued
by the National Human Rights Commission (for short, "NHRC")
and also his own suggestions. Looking at the gravity of the
matter, the Court on that day directed issuance of notice to the E
Union of India, States and Union Territories for consideration
of issuance of final directions I guidelines in the matter by this
Court. After the notice was issued, th·e Union of India, States
and Union Territories, have filed their affidavits.

6. On 28.08.2014, having regard to the importance of the F
matter, we appointed Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan as amicus
curiae to assist the Court in the matter. Mr. Sankaranarayanan,
learned counsel, after thorough research and study, placed
before us his written submissions including the suggestions I
guidelines. G

7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees "right
to live wit~ human dignity". Any violation of human rights is
viewed seriously by this Court as right to life is the most
precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.CR.

A guarantee by Article 21 is available to every person and even
the State has no authority to violate that right.

8. In D.K. Basu', this Court was concerned with custodial
violence and deaths in police lockups. While framing the
requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention
8
till legal provisions are made in that behalf, this Court issued
certain directives as preventive measures. While doing so, the
Court in para 29 (page 433 of the Report) made the following
weighty observations:

c 29. How do we check the abuse of police power?
Transparency of action and accountability perhaps are two
possible safeguards whic"h this Court must insist upon.
Attention is also required to be paid to properly develop
work culture, training and orientation of the police force
D consistent with basic human values. Training methodology
of the police needs restructuring. The force needs to be
infused with basic humari values and made sensitive to the
constitutional ethos. Efforts must be made to change the
attitude and approach of the police personnel handling
E investigations so that they do not sacrifice basic human
values during interrogation and do not resort to
questionable forms of interrogation. With a view to bring
·in transparency, the presence of the counsel of the
arrestee at some point of time during the interrogation may
F deter the police from using third-degree methods during
interrogation.

9. The observations made by this Court in Om Prakash 2
(para 42, page 95 of the Report) are worth noticing:

G 42. It is not the duty of the police officers to kill the accused
mereiy because he is a dreaded criminal. Undoubtedly, the

1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal; [(1997) 1 SCC 416].
2. Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
H Department of Home, Ranchi-1 and Anr.; [(2012) 12 SCC 72].
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 63 ·
•
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]

police have to arrest the accused and put them up for trial. A
This Court has repeatedly admonished trigger-happy
police personnel, who liquidate criminals and project the
incident as an encounter. Such killings must be
deprecated. They are not recognised as legal by our
criminal justice administration system. They amount to B
State-sponsored terrorism. But, one cannot be oblivious
of the fact that there are cases where the police, who are
performing their duty, are attacked and killed. There is a
rise in such incidents and judicial notice must be taken of
this fact. In suc!l circumstances, while the police have to C
do their legal duty of arresting the criminals, they have also
to protect themselves. The requirement of sanction to
prosecute affords protection to the policemen, who are
sometimes required to take drastic action against criminals
to protect life and property of the people and to protect o
themselves against attack. Unless unimpeachable
evidence is on record to establish that their action is
indefensible, ma/a fide .and vindictive, they cannot be
subjected to prosecution. Sanction must be a precondition
to their prosecution. It affords necessary protection to such E
police personnel. The plea regarding sanction can be
raised at the inception.

10. The statistics of the National Crime Records Bureau,
2013 are worth noticing. Table 14.2 under the title "Persons
Killed Or Injured' in Police Firing During 2013 (Event-Wise)" F
shows that there were 684 occasions of police firing classified
as "Riot Control", "Anti-Dacoity Operations", "Against Extremists
and Terrorists" and "Against Others" in 2013 and, in these police
firings, 103 civilians were killed and 213 were injured and, as
regards policemen, 47 were killed and 1158 were injured. G

10.1 Table 15.1 gives details of police personnel killed
across the country in 2013 in terrorist/extremists operations,
dacoity operations or other raids by riotous mobs and by other
criminals.
H
·54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 12 S.C.R.
•

A 10.2 Table 16.1 catalogues the complaints/cases
registered against police personnel during 2013. During the .
year 2013, 51120 complaints were received, of which 26640
were declared false or unsubstantiated. Of the rest, 14928 were
dealt departmentally. Of this, 3896 were reported for regular
s departmental action while 799 were sent up for trials/charge- ·
sheeted. In the completed trials, 53 were convicted. In
departmental proceedings, 544 were dismissed from service
and 3980 had been awarded major punishment.
10.3 Incidence of human rights violations by police during
C 2013 is indicated in Table 16.2. This Table lists only two fake
encounters (both from Assam). The figure raises doubts about
its correctness. · ·
11. In some of the countries when a police firearms officer
is involved in ~ shooting, there are strict guidelines and
D procedures in place to ensure that what has happened is
thoroughly investigated. In India, unfortunately, such structured
guidelines and procedures are not in place where police is
involved in shooting and death of the subject occurs in such
shooting. We are of the opinion that it is the constitutional duty
E of this Court to put in place certain guidelines adherence to
which would help in bringing to justice the perpetrators of the
crime who take law in their own hands.
12. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for PUCL has
F suggested the following guidelines:
Whenever the police are in receipt of any intelligence or
tip off regarding criminal movements or activities
pertaining to the commission of grave criminal offences,
it shall be entered into a case diary. If the receiving
G authority is the police officer of a particular police station,
the relevant entry must be made in the general diary and
if the receiving authority is a police officer of higher rank,
the relevant entry must be made in a separate diary kept
and provided therefor and then be pursued further in
accordance with the procedural law.
H
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 65
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
A dedicated investigative team I separate cadre of police ;A
be formed/established which shall be attached to the
NHRC/SHRC to investigate encounters and other matters
of which NH RC/SH RC is seized. Till the time such
dedicated team/police cadre is established, it is
mandatory that the matters relating to encounter deaths/ B
injuries are handed over for investigation to an independent
investigating agency such as CBl/SHRC. NHRC/SHRC
shall direct as to who will conduct the investigation.

Whenever a police party is involved in an encounter it shall C
immediately inform the NHRC/SHRC and the local police
station of the encounter and shall seal off the premises to
avoid any contamination till such investigative team of the
NHRC/SHRC arrives subject to compliance with the other
guidelines regarding the preservation of fingerprints etc.
D
When a Police Officer receives any information, either
orally or in writing, in furtherance of section 154 of the
Cr.P .C. regarding death or injuries caused in the course
of an encounter operation between the Police party and
others, he shall enter the information in the Crime Register E
or any other appropriate register of that particular police
station and shall immediately send the Report (First
Information Report) to the court without any further delay
through a proper channel. The copies of the said report
shall also be sent to the higher officials including the DGP F
of the concerned State and NHRC/SHRC. The DGP must
also send his report with regard to such encounter death
to NHRC. The DGP shall take disciplinary action against
the officer-in-charge of the police station if he/she fails to
send the report regarding the encounter death to NHRC G
and DGP. A report, as enjoined under section 157(1) of
the Criminal Procedure Code, shall also be followed
necessarily by the concerned police station.

The independent investigating team shall take such steps
H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A by deputing the man or men to get the scene of crime
guarded so as to avoid or obliterate or disfigure the
existing physical features of the scene of occurrence or the. ·
operation encounter. This guarding of the scene of
occurrence shall continue till the inspection of occurrence
B takes place by the aforesaid independent investigating
team and preparation of spot panchnama and the recovery
panchnama.

The police officer involved in the encounter operation and
the independent investigating team, shall make all
c necessary efforts and arrangements immediately after the
said criminal was brought down to the ground and
incapacitated to preserve finger prints of the criminals or
the dreaded gangster, and those on the weapons handled
during the course of the encounter. The said fingerprints,
D properly taken and preserved, must be sent to the
Chemical Analyzer for comparison of the fingerprints of the
dead body to be taken.

The materials which are found on the scene of occurrence
E or the operation encounter ·and such of the materials
including the blood stained earth and blood stained
materials and the sample earth and other moveable -
physical features, shall also be recovered by the
independent investigating team under the cover of recovery
F panchnama attested by independent witnesses.

To fix the exact date and actual place of occurrence in -
' which operation encounter has taken place, a rough sketch
regarding the topography of the existing physical features
of the said place shall be drawn by the aforesaid
G independent invefstigating team either by themselves or by
the help of the staff of the Survey Department when the spot
panchnama is prepared.

The inquest examination shall be conducted by aforesaid
H
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE . 67
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
independent investigating team on the spot itself without A
any delay and statements of the inquest witnesses are to
be recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and thE1 inquest Panchnama shall be sent along
with the above case record prepared along with the First
Information Report without any delay whatsoever to the B
Court.

A Magisterial Inquiry must invariably be held in all cases
of death which occur in the course of police action. The
next of kin of the deceased must invariably be associated C
in such inquiry.

In every case when a complaint is made against the police
alleging commission of a criminal act on their part, which
makes out a cognizable case of culpable homicide, an FIR
to th~ effect must be registered under appropriate D
sections of the l.P.C. Such case shall also be investigated
by the aforesaid investigating team.

Prompt prosecution and disciplinary action must be
initiated against all delinquent officers found guilty in the E
magisterial enquiry/the said investigation. Prosecution of
such delinquent officers shall be conducted by !he
investigating agency. Such delinquent officers must be
placed under suspension.

Question of granting of compensation to the dependents F
of the deceased would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and it shall be determined by
NHRC. However, in every case of a person being killed
by the police party in the course of an encounter, the
compensation granted must necessarily be at least the G
same as that granted to the dependants of a police officer
killed by terrorists in the course of duty by the Government.

No out-of-turn promotion, cash award or gallantry reward
shall be bestowed on the concerned officers pursuant to H.
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014)._12 S.C.R.
'
A their role in an encounter as this may be an incentive for
officers to conduct encounters.

A six monthly statement of all cases of deaths in police
action in the State shall be sent by the Director General
of Police to the Commission, so as to reach its office by
B
the 15th day of January and July respectively. The
statement may be sent in the following format along with
postcmortem reports and inquest reports, wherever
available and also the inquiry reports:-

C 1. Date and place of occurrence.

2. Police Station, District.

3. Circumstances leading to deaths:
D i. · Self defence in encounter

ii. In the course of dispersal of unlawful
assembly

iii. In the course of affecting arrest.
E
4. Brief facts of the incident

5. Criminal Case No.

6. Investigating Agency
F
7. Findings of the magisterial Inquiry/enquiry by Senior
Officers:

a. disclosing in particular names and
G designation of police officials, if found
responsible for the death; and

b. whether use of force was justified and action
taken was lawful.

.H In order to ascertain the identity of persons killed in Police
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 69
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
encounter, their photographs and other details should be A·
advertised on T.V., newspapers etc.

·with respect to the post mortem conducted after an
encounter it is imperative that such a post mortem is, at
the least, conducted in the District Level Government 8
Hospital in the presence of at least three qualified doctors
of which one must be a senior doctor. All such post-
mortems must also necessarily be videotaped and copies
of such videotapes preserved.

If the injured criminals during the operation encounter are C
found alive, not only that they should be provided medical·
aid immediately but also arrangements and attempts shall
be taken by the independent investigative team to record
their s·tatements under Section 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, either by a Magistrate, if possible and D
if not, by the Medical Officer concerned, duly attested by
the hospital staff mentioning the time and factum that while
recording such statements the injured were in a state of
. position that they will be able to give statements and the
connected certificates by the doctors appended thereto. E

After the examination of further witnesses and completing
the investigation inclusive of securing the accused or
accused persons, the independent investigative team is
· directed to send final report to the Court of Competent
jurisdiction as required under Section 173 of the Criminal
F
Procedure Code for further proceeding.

Either in sending the First Information Report or sending
with the general diary entry referred in the guideline nos.
1 and 2, the concerned police I independent investigative G
team, shall avoid any iota of delay under any
circumstances whatsoever so also rough sketch showing
the topography of the scene and the recovery of materials
and the blood stained materials with the sample earth and
the blood stained earth with the other documents viz, the H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A spot panchnama, recovery panchnama - all seems very
vital documents - the respondents police are also directed
to send them to the Court of concerned jurisdiction without
any delay. ·

13. The revised guidelines/procedures to be followed in
8
cases of deaths caused in police action framed by NHRC read
as under:

A. When the police officer in change of a police station
receives information about death in an encounter with the
c police, he shall enter that information in the appropriate/
register.

B. Where the police officers belonging to the same police
station are members of the encounter party, whose action
D resulted in death, it is desirable that such cases are made
over for investigation to some other independent
investigation agency, such as State CBCID.

C. Whenever a. specific complaint is made against the
police alleging commission of a criminal act on their part,
E which makes out a cognizable case of culpable homicide,
an FIR to this effect must be registered under appropriate
sections of the l.P.C. Such case shall be investigated by
State CBCID or any other specialized investigation
agency.
F
D. A magisterial enquiry must be held in all cases of death
which occurs in the course of police action, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably, within three months.
The relatives .of the deceased, eye witnesses having
G information of the circumstances leading to encounter,
police station records. etc. must be examined· while
conducting such enquiry.

E. Prompt prosecution and disciplinary action must be
initiated against all delinquent officers found guilty in the
H magisterial enquiry/police investigation.
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 71
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
F. No out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards A
shall be bestowed on the concerned officers soon after the
occurrence. It must be ensured at all costs that such
rewards are given/recommended only when the gallantry
of the concerned officer is established beyond doubt.
B
G. (a) All cases of deaths in police action in the states shall
be reported to the Commission by the Senior
Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the
District within 48 hours of such death in the following
~~ c
1. Date and place of occurrence

2. Police station, district

3. Circumstances leading to death : D

(i) Self-defence in encounter

(ii) In course of dispersal of unlawful assembly
E
(iii) In the course of effecting arrest

(iv) Any other circumstances

4. Brief facts of the incident
F
5. Criminal case No.

6. Investigating agency

(b) A second report must be sent in all cases of death in
police action in the state by the Sr. Superintendent of G
Police/Superintendent of Police to the commission within
three months providing following information:

1. Post mortem report
H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 12 S:C.R.

A 2. Inquest report

3. Findings of the magisterial enquiry/enquiry by
senior officers disclosing:

(i) Names and designation of police official,
B
if found responsible for the death:

(ii) Whether use of force was justified and
action taken was lawful:

c (iii) Result of the forensic examination of
'handwash' of the deceased to ascertain the
presence of residueof gun powder to justify
exercise of right of self defence; and

D (iv) Report of the Ballistic Expert on
examination ofthe weapons alleged to have
been used by the deceased and his
companions.

E 14. Union of India in its counter affidavit has given its
comments to the guidelines framed by the High Court and so
also to the guidelines suggested by learned counsel for PUCL.
Union of India has expressed its reservation on certain
guidelines on diverse counts .including the practical difficulties
F in their implementation. As regards States and Union
Territories, their views are not uniform on the guidelines framed
by the High Court and also the guidelines suggested by PUCL.
In respect of some of the guidelines, some States and Union
Territories have toed the line of Union of India in not accepting
G the same on the ground of practical difficulties in their
implementation. Few States have highlighted the procedure
that is being followed by them when any death or encounter
takes place. As regards investigation in such cases, some of
the States have highlighted that the investigation of such cases
H
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 73
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
cannot be done by officers I employees of the same police A
station and it is ensured that investigation of such cases is
done by some higher officer. On the other hand, few States I
·Union Territories have stated that initial investigation may be
conducted by the local police because local police is
acquainted with the modus operandi of local criminals and B
crime.

15. Before we proceed further, we put on record our
appreciation for the efforts of learned amicus curiae in collating
the guidelines framed by the High Court, guidelines suggested c
by PUCL and guidelines issued by NHRC and their
acceptability or otherwise by the Union I States I Union
Territories and his own comments.

16. Article 21 of the Constitution provides "no person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to D·
procedure established by law". This Court has stated time and
again that Article 21 confers sacred and cherished right under
the Constitution which cannot be violated, except according to
procedure established by law. Article 21 guarantees personal
liberty to every single person in the country which includes the E
right to live with human digr:iity.

17. In line with the guarantee provided by Article 21 and.
other provisions in the Constitution of India, a number of statutory
provisions also seek to protect personal liberty, dignity and
F
basic human rights. In spite of 'Constitutional and statutory
provisions aimed at safeguarding the personal liberty and life
of a citizen, the cases of death in police encounters continue
to occur. This Court has been confronted with encounter cases
from time to time. In Chaitanya Kalbagh 3 , this Court was
concerned with a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the G
Constitution wherein the impartial investigation was sought for
the alleged killing of299 persons in the police encounters. The
Court observed that in the facts and circumstances presented

3. Chaitanya Kalbagh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.; [(1989) 2 SCC 314]. H
74 SUPREME COLJRT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A before it, there was an imperative need of ensuring that the
guardians of law and order do in fact observe the code of
discipline expected of them and that they function strictly as the
protectors of innocent citizens.

B 18. In R. S. Sodhi4, a writ petition was brought to this Court
under Article 32 of thE_l Constitution relating to an incident in
which 10 persons were reported to have been killed in what
were described as "encounters" between the Punjab militants
and the local police. The Court observed, "Whether the loss of
lives was on account of a genuine or a fake encounter is a
C matter which has to be inquired into and investigated closely".
The Court entrusted the investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (for short, "the CBI") to ensure that the investigation
did not lack credibility.

D 19. In Satyavir Singh Rathi5, the matter before this Court
arose from the First Information Report (for short, "FIR")
registered against police personnel involved in a shoot-out for
an offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). In the complaint, it was alleged
E that the police officials had surrounded the car and had fired
indiscriminately and without cause a.t the occupants, killing the
two and causing grievous injuries to the third. This Court
concurred with the High Court and the trial Court on the
conviction under Section 302 IPC and rejected the defence set
F up by the accused persons relying on Exception 3 in Section
300 IPC as it was found to be not in good faith or due discharge
of their duty.

20. In Prakash Kadam 6 , the allegation was that the
accused persons decided to eliminate the deceased in a false
G
4. R.S. Sodhi, Advocate v. State of U.P. and Ors.; [ 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143].
5. Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. State
through Central Bureau of Investigation; [(2011) 6 SCC 1].
6. Prakash Kadam and Ors. v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Anr.; [(2011)
H s sec 189J. ·
PEOPLE;S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 75
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M .. LODHA, CJI.]
police encounter. The Court noted that this was a very serious A
case wherein prima facie some police officers and staff were
engaged by some private persons to kill their opponent and the
police officers and the staff acted as contract killers for them.
The Court warned policemen that they would not be excused
for committing murder in the name of "encounter" on the pretext B
that they were carrying out the orders of their superior officers
or politicians. The Court said that the. "encounter" philosophy
is a criminal philosophy.

21. In Om Prakash 2 , the allegation against the accused
persons was that the complainant's son was killed by them in C
a fake police encounter. The Court, however, held that the
encounter was a genuine one though NHRC guideline for
photography of the autopsy was not complied with.

22. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in B.G. Verghese' D
dealt with two writ petitions. In Writ Petition (Criminal) No.31/
2007, it was stated that during the years 2003-2006, 21 police
enco.unter killings took place in the State of Gujarat. It was
alleged that the so-called police encounters were fake and the
persons were killed by the police officials in cold blood. In the E
writ petition a prayer was made for ordering an inquiry into all
the cases of police encounters, which, according to the
petitioner, were fake in order to establish the rule of law and to
bring out the truth in each case. In the other Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 83/2007, the allegation related to the killing of F
one person in a police encounter. It was alleged that this too
was an instance of fake encounter in which the victim was killed
by the officers of the crime branch of police in cold blood and
in a premeditated manner. The prayer was made in the writ
petition to order an independent investigation by a special G
investigation team into all the fake encounters. During the
pendency of the matter before this Court, the State of Gujarat
had constituted a Monitoring Authority and Special Task Force

. 7. B.G. Verghese v. Union of India and Ors.; [(2013) 11 SCC 525]. H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 12 S.C.R.

A for investigation of police encounters. Since the former Judge
of this Court was appointed as .Chairman of the Monitoring
Authority, the Court requested the Chairman of the Moniforing
Authority to look into all the cases of alleged fake encounters
as enumerated in the~two writ petitions and to have them
B thoroughly investigated so that full and complete truth comes
to light in each case.

23. In Rohtash Kumat8, again a two-Judge Bench of this
Court was confronted with killing of a person in an encounter
C by the police officials. Having found that the death took place
in the fake police encounter, the Court directed an independent
investigating agency to conduct the investigation so that guilty
could be brought to justice.

24. The above cases have been referred .only by way of
D illustration to show that killings in police encounters require
independent investigation. The killings in police encounters
affect the credibility of the rule of law and the administration of
the criminaljustice system.

E 25. We are not oblivious of the fact that police in India has
to perform a difficult and delicate task, particularly, when many
hardcore criminals, like, extremists, terrorists; drug peddlers,
smugglers who have organized gangs, have taken strong roots
in the society but then such criminals must be dealt with by the
police in an efficient and effective manner so as to bring them
F to justice by following rule of law. We are of the view that it would
be useful and effective to structure appropriate guidelines to
restore faith of the people in police force. In a society· governed
by rule of law, it is imperative that extra-judicial killings are
properly and independently investigated so that justice may be
G done.

26. Learned amicus curiae submits that when a police

8. Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana through .the Home Secretary,
Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and Ors.; [(2013) 14
H sec 2so1.
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 77
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
encounter occurs, it is important that a complaint is registered; A
the evidence is preserved; independent and fair investigation
takes place; victims are informed and inquest is conducted.

27. Sections 174v, 175°0 and 176°00 of the Code of

v Section 174. Police to inquire and report on suicide, etc. - (1) When the B
officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially
empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information
that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by
an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under
circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has
committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the C
nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless
otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by
any general or special order of the District or Sub- divisional Magistrate,
shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is,
and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the
neighbourhood shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the
apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and D
other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what
manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to
have been inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and qther persons, or by
so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the
District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate. . E
(3) When-
(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage;
or
(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage
in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other
person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or F
(iii) the case relates ·to the death of a woman within seven years of her
marriage and any relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf;
or
(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or
(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he G
shall, subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this
behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest
Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man app.ointed in this behalf by
the State Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of
its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as
would render such examination useless.
H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Code") provide for
Magisterial inquiries into cases of unnatural death. It is apposite
(4) The following Magisirates are empowered to hold inquests, namely, any
District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Executive
Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or
the District Magistrate.
B
" Section 175. Power to summon persons. - (1) A police officer proceeding
under section 174, may, by order in writing, summon .two or more persons
as aforesaid for the purpose of the said investigation. and any other person
who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case and every person
so summoned shall be bound to.attend and to answer truly all questions
other than questions the answers. to which have a tendency to expose him
c to a criminal charge or to a penalty 'or forfeiture. ·
(2) If the facts do not disclose a cognizable offence to which section 170
applies, such persons shall not be required by the police officer to attend
a Magistrate's Court.
000
Section 176. Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death. - (1) when the case
· is of the nature referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of
D section 174. the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall. and
in any other case mentioned in I sub- section (1) of section 174, any
Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death either
instead of, or in addition to, the investigation held by the police officer; and
if he does so, he shall have all the powers in conducting it which he would·
have in holding an inquiry into an offence.
E (1A) Where,-
(a) any person dies or disappears, or
(b) rape is alleged to have been committed on .any woman,
while such person or woman is in the custody of the police or in any other
custody authorized by the Magistrate or the Court, under this Code in
addition to the inquiry or investigation held by the police, an inquiry shall
F be held by the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the
case may be, within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been
committed.
(2) The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the evidence taken by
him in connection therewith in any manner hereinafter prescribed acc0rding
to the circumstances of the case.
G (3) Whenever.such Magistrate con~iders it expedient to make an examination
of the dead body of any person who has been already interred. in order to
c!iscover the cause of his death, the Magistrate may cause the body to be
disinterred and examined.
(4) Where an inquiry is. to be held under this section, the Magistrate shall,
wherever practicable, inform the relatives of the deceased whose names
H
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 79
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
. '
to mention that a system for investigating the cause of death A
in cases of unusual or suspicious circumstancesjs in place in
most countries. The system centers 'around the policy to have
reassuranCE!. that unexplained deaths do not remain unexplained
and that the perpetrator is tried by a competent court
established by law. B

28. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has
framed certain general principles on the effective prevention
and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary
executionsA. The principles so framed by the UDHR are C

and addresses are known, and shall allow them to remain present at the
inquiry.
(5) The Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate or Executive Magistrate
or police officer holding an inquiry or investigation, as the case may be,
under sub-section (1A) shall, within twenty-four hours of the death of a D
person, forward the body with a view to its being examined to the nearest
Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by
the State Government, unless it is not possible to do so for reasons to be
recorded in writing.
Explanation.- In this section, the expression "relative" means parents,
children, brothers, sisters and spouse. ·
E
A 1. Requiring states to provide the investigative authority with sufficient
power to compel any relevant parties including the official implicated to
testify (Provision 10).
2. Obligating states to provide for an independent inquiry into alleged police
misconduct through an appointed commission when existing procedures
are inadequate or when there are allegations of such inadequacies. The F
commission members must be independent of individuals implicated in
the incident (Provision 11).
3. Requiring that those conducting autopsies must be able to function
independently and impartially (Provision 14).
4. Requiring states to protect those who witness or allege police misconduct
and obligating states to remove the implicated officers from any involvement G
in the investigation (Provision 15).
5. Affording the victim's family and legal representative the right to request
that an independent qualified representative be present during the autopsy
of the victim's body (Provision 16).
6. Calling for the prompt submission of a written report on, ttie investigation
specifically detailing the methods utilized as well as .the findings of fact H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.CR.

A intended to guarantee independence while investigating police
killings and help in preventing potential for abuse, corruption,
ineffectiveness and neglect in investigation.

29. The United Nations Code of Conduct for Law
Enforcement Officers (which includes all officers of the law, who
8
exercise police powers) lays down that in the performance of
duties, Law Enforcement Officers shall respect and protect
human dignity and maintain and uphold human rights of all
persons. Basic human rights standards for good conduct by
C Law Enforcement Officers by Amnesty International, inter a/ia,
suggest, (1) Do not use force except when strictly necessary
and to the minimum extent required under the circumstances
and (2) Do not carry out, order or cover up extra-judicial
executions or "disappearances" and refuse to obey any order
to do so.
D
30. Minnesota Protocol (Model protocol for a legal
investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions)
establishes a long line of requisite steps. The Protocol sets the
principles and medico legal standards for the investigation and
E prevention of extra legal, arbitrary and summary executions. The
Protocol provides for in-depth guid;mce in a general way on
.the subjects (1) purpose of an inquiry (2) procedljfe for an
inquiry (3) processing of the crime scene (4) processing of the
evidence (5) avenues to investigation (6) personal testimony
F etc. In Section C of the Minnesota Protocol, a long list of
requisite steps is suggested, some of which being:

1. the area in which evidence is located should be
closed off to the public;

G 2. photographs of the scene and physical evidence

and law resulting from the inquiry. It further requires that such reports be
released to the public (Provision 17).
7. Recognizing that those undertaking these investigations must "have at their
disposal all the necessary budgetary and technical resources for effective
H investigation" into police killings.
'•,.-

PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 81
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
located at the scene should be taken in a prompt A
manner;

3. investigators should promptly record the condition
of the body;

4. weapons such as guns, projectiles, bullets and B
cartridge cases should be taken and preserved;

5. tests for gunshot residue and trace metal detection
should be performed on the victims' bodies and the
police officers involved; c
6. fingerprints of relevant persons should be
preserved;

7. information should be obtained from witnesses;
D
8. all persons at the scene should be identified;

9. a report detailing the work of the investigators
during their on-site visit should be kept and later
disclosed;
-E
10. evidence should be properly collected, handled, ·
packaged, labeled, arid placed in safekeeping to
prevent contamination and loss of evidence.

31. In light of the above discussion and having regard to F
the directions issued by the Bombay High Court, guidelines
issued by NHRC, suggestions of the appellant - PUCL, amicus
curiae and the affidavits filed by the Union of India, State
Governments and the Union Territories, we think it appropriate
to issue the following requirements to be followed in the matters G
of investigating police encounters in the cases of death as the
standard procedure for thorough, effective and independent
investigation:

(1) Whenever the police is in receipt of any intelligence or
tip-off regarding criminal movements or activities pertaining to H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 12 S.C.R.

A the commission of grave criminal offence, it shall be reduced
into writing in some form (preferably into case diary) or in some
electronic form. Such recording need not reveal details of the
suspect or the location to which the party is headed. If such
intelligence or tip-off is received by a higher authority, the same
B may be noted in some form without revealing details of the
suspect or the location.

(2) If pursuant to the tip-off or receipt of any intelligence,
as above, encounter takes place and firearm is used by the
C police party and as a result of that, death occurs, an FIR to that
effect shall be registered and the same shall be forwarded to
the court under Section 157 of the Code without any delay.
While forwarding the report under Section 157 of the Code, the
procedure prescribed under Section 158 of the Code shall be
followed.
D
(3) An independent investigation into the incident/
encounter shall be conducted by the CID or police team of
another police station under the supervision of a senior officer
(at least a level above the head of the police party engaged in
E the encounter). The team conducting inquiry/investigation shall,
at a minimum, seek:

(a) To identify the victim; colour photographs of the victim
should be taken;

F (b) To recover and preserve evidentiary material, including
blood-stained earth, hair, fibers and threads, etc., related to the
death;

(c) To identify scene witnesses with complete names,
G addresses and telephone numbers and obtain their statements
(including the statements of police personnel involved)
concerning the death;

(d) To determine the cause, manner, location (including
preparation of rough sketch of topography of the scene and, if
H possible, photo/video of the scene and any physical evidence)
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 83
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
and time of death as well as any pattern or practice that may A
have brought about the death;

(e) It must be ensured that intact fingerprints of deceased
are sent for chemical analysis. Any other fingerprints should be
located, developed, lifted and sent for chemical analysis;
B
(f) Post-mortem must be conducted by two doctors in the
District Hospital, one of them, as far as possible, should be In-
charge/Head of the District Hospital. Post-mortem shall be
video-graphed and preserved;
c
(g) Any evidence of weapons, such as guns, projectiles,
bullets and cartridge cases, should be taken and preserved.
Wherever applicable, tests for gunshot residue and trace metal
detection should be performed.

(h) The cause of death should be found out, whether it was D
natural death, accidental death, suicide or homicide.

(4) A Magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code
must invariably be held in all cases of death which occur in the
course of police firing and a report thereof must be sent to E
Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction under Section 190 of the
Code.

(5) The involvement of NHRC is not necessary unless there
is serious doubt about independent and impartial investigation.
F
However, the information of the incident without any delay must
be sent to NHRC or the State Human Rights Commission, as
the case may be.

(6) The injured criminal/victim should be provided medical
aid and his/her statement recorded by the Magistrate or G
Medical Officer with certificate of fitness.

(7) It should be ensured that there is no delay in sending
FIR, diary entries, panchnamas, sketch, etc., to the concerned
Court. H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A (8) After full investigation into the incident, the report should
be sent to the competent court under Section 173 of the Code.
The trial, pursuant to the chargesheet submitted by the
Investigating Officer, must be concluded expeditiously.
,;)
(9) In the event of death, the next of kin of the alleged
8
criminal/victim must be informed at the earliest..

(10) Six monthly statements of all cases where deaths have
occurred in police firing must be sent to NHRC by DGPs. It must
· be ensured that the six monthly statements reach to NHRC by
C 15th day of January and July, respectively. The statements may
be sent in the following format along with post mortem, inquest
and, wherever available, the inquiry reports:

(i) Date and place of occurrence.
D (ii) Police Station, District.

(iii) Circumstances leading to deaths:

(a) Self defence in encounter.
E (b) In the course of dispersal of unlawful assembly.

(c) In the course of affecting arrest.

(iv) Brief facts of the incident.
F (v) Criminal Case No.

(vi) Investigating Agency.

(vii) Findings of the Magisterial Inquiry/Inquiry by
Senior Officers:
G
(a) disclosing, in particular, names and designation
of police officials, if found responsible for the death;
and

H
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE 85
OF MAHARASHTRA [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
(b) whether use of force was justified and action .A
taken was lawful.

(11) If on the conclusion of investigation the materials/
evidence having come on record show that death had occurred
by use of firearm amounting to offence under the IPC,
8
· disciplinary action against such officer must be promptly
initiated and he be placed under suspension.

(12) As regards compensation to be granted to the
dependants of the victim who suffered death in a police
encounter, the scheme provided under Section 357-A of the C
Code must be applied.

(13) The police officer(s) concerned must surrender his/
her weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis, including any
other material, as required by the investigating team, subject D
to the rights under Article 20 of the Constitution.

(14) An intimation about the incident must also be sent to
the police officer's family and should the family need services
of a lawyer I counselling, same must be offered.
E
(15) No out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards
shall be bestowed on the concerned officers soon after the
occurrence. It must be ensured at all costs that such rewards
are given/recommended only when the gallantry of the
concerned officers is established beyond doubt. F

(16) If the family of the victim finds that the above procedure
has not been followed or there exists a pattern of abuse or lack
of independent investigation or impartiality by any of the
functionaries as above mentioned, it may make a complaint to
the Sessions Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place G
of incident. Upon such complaint being made, the concerned
Sessions Judge shall look into the merits of the complaint and
address the grievances raised therein.

32. The above guidelines will also be applicable to H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 12 S.C.R.

A grievous injury cases in police encounter, as far as possible.

33. Accordingly, we direct that the above requirements I
norms must be strictly observed in all cases of death and
grievous injury in police encounters by treating them as law
declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
B
Nidhi Jain Guidlines issued.