Police Officers Entitled To Use Necessary Force To Arrest Fleeing Accused: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday ruled that police officers are entitled to use necessary force to arrest an accused while discharging their official duty, particularly when they are pursuing a fleeing accused. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also added that while using such force, if any injury is caused to the accused, it does not mean that the officer was not acting in discharge of his duty....
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday ruled that police officers are entitled to use necessary force to arrest an accused while discharging their official duty, particularly when they are pursuing a fleeing accused.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also added that while using such force, if any injury is caused to the accused, it does not mean that the officer was not acting in discharge of his duty.
"It can be understood that petitioner was apprehended by the 2nd respondent and his team...while discharging their official duty. It can also be noticed that in discharge of the said duty, they are entitled to use such force as is necessary to arrest an accused. Further in the attempt to subdue a fleeing accused, force can be used, and if in that process any injury is caused, it cannot be said that the police officer was not acting in discharge of his duty."
The petitioner approached the Magistrate alleging that a Circle Inspector of Police brutally attacked him with a bamboo stick and dragged him by his hair. He thereby filed a complaint against the officer alleging offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of IPC.
By the impugned order, the Magistrate refused to take cognizance citing that the petitioner ought to have obtained sanction under Section 197 of CrPC for prosecuting the accused. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Advocate Lal K.Joseph appearing for the petitioner contended that the Magistrate has erroneously held that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required since the police officer was not discharging his duty while inflicting torture on the petitioner.
However, Advocate V.Vinay appearing for the police officer contended that the Magistrate had considered all the relevant aspects and found that in the nature of the circumstances, sanction under Section 197 CrPC was essential and therefore rightly deferred taking cognizance of the case. It was further submitted that sanction has not been obtained till date, and hence the complaint itself ought to have been dismissed.
Public Prosecutor Noushad K.A agreed with this contention, submitting that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.
The Court found that a crime was registered at the Nilambur Police Station alleging that around 30 persons, including the petitioner's employer, trespassed into a suit property and committed the offence of robbery.
The petitioner alleged that he was arrested one midnight by the respondent police officer and his team in connection with this case. However, the Magistrate found that he was arrested pursuant to the registration of a crime and the same was in the course of the investigation, thus the officer was acting in discharge of his duty since the arrest was made 7 days after the registration of crime.
The High Court observed that the wound certificate indicated that the petitioner did not sustain any serious injury. Further, the respondent officer had contended that pursuant to the registration of the crime, the petitioner and other accused had absconded.
It was also submitted that when the petitioner was identified within the vicinity of the disputed property and while he was being apprehended, he attacked the police with a sword and tried to escape. In the process, the police chased him, and during the chase, the petitioner fell down, after which the officer and his team used requisite force to subdue the petitioner and thereafter arrested him.
The Court noted that in Prakash v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KLT 158], the Single Judge observed that three questions are to be answered while considering the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC:
(i) What was the particular official duty which was being discharged or purported to be discharged by the public servant, at the time of alleged commission of offence?
(ii) What act or acts are to be done by the public servant to perform and complete such particular official duty?
(iii) Is there any reasonable connection or relationship between the offending act/ acts allegedly committed by the public servant and, the act or acts which is/ are to be done to perform and complete such particular duty?
The Court found that in this case, the petitioner was apprehended 7 days after registration of the crime and while discharging their official duty. While perusing the impugned order of the Magistrate, the Court noted that the Magistrate has held that if in the doing of his official duty, a person acted in excess of his duty, and there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the act done in excess cannot be regarded as a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
"When a crime alleging robbery and criminal trespass is registered as an FIR, necessarily the police will have to investigate and nab the accused and arrest him. In the process of arresting the accused, the police are entitled to use such force as is necessary to arrest the accused."
Therefore, it was clear that the Magistrate had considered all aspects of the case before refusing to take cognizance. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Gulam Rasul v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 381