In a significant development concerning the infamous Anandpal Singh encounter case, the Jodhpur District and Sessions Court has delivered a crucial verdict, overturning a lower court's directive to initiate murder proceedings against the police officers and personnel involved, while this decision brings substantial relief to three officers, including the then Churu SP Rahul Barhath, and four police personnel who were previously ordered to face murder charges. The court explicitly stated in its ruling that the police acted in self-defense, considering their actions to be within the scope of their official duties.
Background to the Controversy and Lower Court's Order
The case stems from the encounter of notorious gangster Anandpal Singh on June 24, 2017, in Malasar village, Churu district. Anandpal, who was wanted in 41 serious criminal cases, was killed by the Rajasthan Police's Special Operation Group (SOG) team after he reportedly fired from a rooftop. The encounter immediately sparked controversy, with some quarters labeling it a 'fake encounter. ' In December 2017, the Rajasthan government handed over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI, after its probe, submitted a closure report, affirming the legitimacy of the encounter. However, Anandpal's wife, Rajkanwar, challenged this CBI closure report in court.
ACJM Court's Decision and Charges Against Police
Following Rajkanwar's challenge, on July 24, 2024, the Additional Chief. Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Court in Jodhpur rejected the CBI's closure report. The lower court then ordered the filing of murder charges against seven police officers and personnel involved in the encounter, while these included the then Churu SP Rahul Barhath, then Additional SP Vidya Prakash Chaudhary, DSP Suryaveer Singh Rathore, RAC Head Constable Kailash Chandra, Constable Dharmpal, Constable Dharmveer Singh, and RAC Sohan Singh. They were ordered to be booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 147,. 148, 302 (murder), 326, 325, 324, and 149, a decision that caused considerable stir within the police department.
District and Sessions Court's Landmark Ruling
Justice Ajay Sharma of the Jodhpur District and Sessions Court, in overturning the ACJM Court's order, provided much-needed relief to the police personnel. The court emphasized in its judgment that the police team was performing its duty, which was to apprehend Anandpal, a notorious gangster wanted in 41 serious cases. The court noted that when Anandpal continuously fired with his AK-47 rifle and injured members of the police team, the police retaliated in self-defense to save their lives. This action, the court concluded, falls within the purview of their. Official duty and can't be construed as an attempt to murder.
Principle of Self-Defense and Legal Protection
Justice Ajay Sharma also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in the Omprakash vs. State of Jharkhand case. He stated that even if some transgression or boundary violation occurs while discharging duty, police officers should still receive legal protection under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), provided there is a reasonable and valid connection between the act and the official duty. In this instance, the court found that the police officers were performing their duty, and Because of this, they shouldn't face prosecution without prior government sanction. This ruling underscores the importance of providing legal safeguards to. Police personnel while they're carrying out their official duties.
Critique of the Lower Court's Decision
The District and Sessions Court deemed the ACJM's order flawed from both legal and factual perspectives, while the court pointed out that the lower court had overlooked crucial evidence such as the FSL (Forensic Science Lab) report, medical reports, and ballistic reports. These reports typically provide a detailed analysis of the events during an encounter and the nature of force used by the police, while the court clarified that police personnel performing their duties shouldn't be subjected to criminal prosecution without concrete evidence. This observation highlights the necessity for lower courts to thoroughly consider all available evidence in such sensitive cases.
Detailed Account of the Encounter
While this decision offers immediate relief to the police personnel, the legal battle is far from over, while rajkanwar's lawyer, Bhawar Singh, stated to the media that they would challenge the District and Sessions Court's decision in the Rajasthan High Court. This indicates that the case is likely to proceed to a higher judicial forum, where the. Legality of the encounter and the actions of the police personnel will once again be scrutinized. This development reflects the complexity of such sensitive cases within the Indian judicial system and the protracted legal processes involved.
On June 24, 2017, acting on precise intelligence about Anandpal's location, the Rajasthan Police's SOG team launched an operation in Malasar village. As the team advanced towards the location, Anandpal began indiscriminate firing from the rooftop of a house using an AK-47 rifle. The police retaliated, and in the ensuing fierce encounter, which lasted approximately 45 minutes, Anandpal was killed. This encounter marked the end of a significant criminal chapter in Rajasthan, but it has since been a subject of legal and social debate regarding its legitimacy. The recent court decision adds a new turn to this long-standing debate, potentially influencing discussions on police morale and the boundaries of law enforcement.
