The scathing remarks by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on the Shravasti “half-encounter” have put the UP Police’s much-touted encounter policy under fresh scrutiny and prompted a rethink within the department and the state government’s legal team on how such cases are documented and defended in court.
Senior officers acknowledge that poor drafting, copy-paste narratives and weak affidavits are giving an easy handle to courts to question bona fides of the entire action. We need to present facts with evidence, not filmy narrative. The high court observed what it described as a pattern: “Day in and day out… police apprehend a person, it gives rise to another FIR alleging accused indulged in indiscriminate firing against police team. Normally, not even a pellet touches the uniform of any police person, and all escape unhurt. The police fire one shot, and it hits the accused on his knee or below it.
Police faults in the Shravasti case flagged by the high court have become a checklist for future reforms. – No compliance with Supreme Court guidelines for probing encounters causing death or grievous injury, and rewarding all 23 policemen before the inquiry.
The Lucknow bench’s August 13 order, in which Justice Subhash Vidyarthi flagged 10 major loopholes — ranging from “13 cops in one vehicle” to “two perfect shots in a moonlit night” — is now being seen as a case study in how inconsistencies in FIRs, charge sheets and affidavits can undermine a police version. A senior state government counsel said, “Half-encounter cannot be justified with half-baked paperwork. The court did not say the encounter was fake, but said our story does not add up.
It will also examine whether the prosecution was conducted with undue haste, including the reported conviction within five months of the offence, and whether the accused had access to legal aid at the remand stage. The court has listed the matter for further hearing on November 23. The CBI probe ordered into the Shravasti case is to be completed within three months.
