2019 Rape & Murder Of Vet In Hyderabad | High Court Allows Police Who Allegedly Staged Encounter Of Accused To Be Impleaded As Intervenors In Trial
The Telangana High Court has allowed the police party who allegedly caused the encounter death of the accused in a 2019 case of rape and murder of a young Veterinarian doctor in Hyderabad, to be impleaded as intervenors and be heard at the time of the final hearing in a batch of Public Interest Litigations filed to enquire into the encounter killings.One of the many reliefs sought in the batch...
The Telangana High Court has allowed the police party who allegedly caused the encounter death of the accused in a 2019 case of rape and murder of a young Veterinarian doctor in Hyderabad, to be impleaded as intervenors and be heard at the time of the final hearing in a batch of Public Interest Litigations filed to enquire into the encounter killings.
One of the many reliefs sought in the batch of Public interest litigations is to set aside the order passed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), entrust the matter for re-investigation with the CBI and further register a case against the police party under section 302 of IPC as opposed to the already registered F.I.R under section 307 of I.P.C.
The intervenors/police party contended that once the closure report in the SIT was filed, they had a right to be heard and to challenge the same.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti passed the order in a batch of PILs that were filed following the ghastly rape and murder of the 26 year old veterinary doctor in 2019, which was followed by the extra-judicial killings of the accused by the investigating officers.
The Bench reaffirmed that an accused does not have the right to be heard at the pre-registration stage, however owing to the favourable report submitted by the SIT, the accused/police officials were allowed to be heard at the stage of final hearing. It stated:
"Thus, it is well settled in law that under the Scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused is not provided with any right of hearing at the time of registration of First Information Report."
It was argued that the SIT comprised of individuals from within the state of Telangana has given findings in favour of the police and held that the encounter had not been scripted.
The writ petitioners contended that since the SIT consisted of members only from within the State of Telangana, there is a likelihood that their findings were prejudiced and pleaded that the investigation be entrusted to the CBI.
In all the public interest litigations, members of the police party who had accompanied the accused to the scene of crime have filed implead petitions contending that once a closure report had been filed by the SIT, the accused had the right against re-investigation
The Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the inspector and sub-inspector contended that the SIT had given findings in their favour, and now, if those findings were to be scrapped, and a re-investigation was to be conducted, they were entitled to be heard.
It was also contended that if the prayer of the writ petitioners was allowed, it would seriously infringe upon the right to reputation of the intervenors, which was a fundamental right.
Lastly, it was stated that public interest litigation is not adversarial, and if the implead petitions were allowed, the interveners would be able to assist the Court.
The Senior counsel on behalf of some of the other officers in the Police party further added that no judicial order can be passed without giving reasonable opportunity to the person who is being affected and stated that since investigation is sought by a Special Agency, discretion may be exercised in favour of the affected parties.
The petitioners in the public interest litigations on the other hand vehemently contended that at the stage of registration of F.IR. the prospective accused did not have the right to be heard and no principles of natural justice were being infringed upon.
Further, it was stated that the F.I.R registered against the police officials was bad in the eye of the law and that it ought to have been filed under section 302 of the IPC and not under section 307. It was stated that by doing so, the guidelines laid down in People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. State of Maharashtra were flouted and a predetermined conclusion was arrived at.
It was lastly contended that the Commission that was set up by the Supreme Court for inquiry into the extrajudicial killings revealed a cognizable offence and the same should form the basis for F.I.R.
The Amicus Curiae appointed in the matter conceded with the arguments advanced by the Writ petitioners.
The Bench after hearing the contentions reiterated that no statute provides for a pre-arrest notice and that the absence of such a provision in any legislature demonstrates the intent of the legislature.
Nonetheless, the court also held that the report filed by the SIT cannot be disregarded and since the intervenors are already respondents in the Writ filed by the families of the deceased, it would be apt to allow their petition. It held:
"Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we are inclined to permit the implead petitioners to intervene in these proceedings to ensure fairness and justice in the proceedings, particularly when the interest of justice demand a proper representation of affected parties or view points. It is relevant to here that the present proceedings are pro bono publico in nature and since implead petitioners are interested in the outcome of these proceedings, we are to hear them."
Background:
In late 2019, a veterinary doctor was raped and murdered by being set ablaze in the outskirts of Hyderabad, Telangana.
Four accused were arrested soon after, based on CCTV footage. When the accused were taken to the scene of the crime, they allegedly tried to escape from the custody of the police officials and the officials allegedly opened fire in the line of their duty to stop the fleeing accused.
Interestingly, after the encounter, a case was registered against the deceased accused and not against the police party.
The actions of the police officials sent not only the State but the entire nation into a fury, questioning the apparent encounter.
The Telangana High Court was flooded with letters requesting the Chief to take up cognizance of the matter including the larger question of public and woman safety.
A Special Investigating Team was set up within the State of Telangana and investigated the legality of the killings.
A petition was filed before the Supreme Court as well, and the Supreme Court directed that a Commission be formed to gauge the legality of the incident and also stayed all proceedings before the high court, except the investigation being conducted by the SIT.
The Commission found that the encounter had been fabricated and all evidence pointed against the police officials.