Gujarat High Court Upholds Magisterial Inquiry, Clears Police in 2018 Encounter Case
The Gujarat High Court has delivered a significant ruling by upholding a magisterial inquiry that gave a clean chit to the Mahisagar police concerning the encounter death of Sajid Shaikh, widely known as Rabdi, in Lunawada town back in 2018. This decision reinforces the findings of the initial investigation, which concluded that police actions were justified under the circumstances.
Background of the 2018 Hostage Situation and Encounter
On August 18, 2018, Rabdi, a figure with 48 FIRs registered against him, allegedly barricaded himself inside a house in Lunawada. He was reported to be holding women and children hostage while brandishing a sword, creating a tense and dangerous scenario for all involved.
Police personnel arrived at the scene and attempted to negotiate with Rabdi, urging him to surrender the weapon. However, he refused to comply and, according to official accounts, made an aggressive move to attack a policeman present there.
In response, Police Sub-Inspector P R Karen fired a warning shot into the air. When Rabdi continued his threatening behavior, a second bullet was discharged, which tragically struck Rabdi in the neck, resulting in his immediate death at the location.
Mandatory Magisterial Inquiry and Family's Challenge
Following this police encounter, a mandatory magisterial inquiry was initiated under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The magistrate overseeing the investigation concluded that PSI Karen had acted in self-defense and to protect not only the hostages but also fellow police officers from imminent harm.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, Rabdi's family contested the inquiry's findings. They filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court, labeling the magisterial inquiry as partial and biased. The family argued that the magistrate had primarily recorded statements from police officials who were on the spot, neglecting a more comprehensive investigation.
They demanded the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and called for an independent probe by an agency other than the Mahisagar police, citing guidelines established by the Supreme Court for such cases.
High Court's Detailed Ruling and Justification
After a thorough hearing, Justice M R Mengdey of the Gujarat High Court upheld the magisterial inquiry report. The court emphasized that the magistrate had conducted a "detained inquiry," meaning a careful and detailed examination of the facts.
Justice Mengdey noted, "Upon perusal of the report of the learned magistrate, this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner gets falsified since the learned Magistrate not merely recorded the statements of the police officials, but also recorded the statements of the persons who were kept as hostages by the deceased."
The High Court affirmed the inquiry's conclusion that PSI Karen opened fire in legitimate self-defense and to save the captive women and children from potential harm. This ruling solidifies the legal standing of the police's actions during the critical incident.
Supreme Court Guidelines and Final Observations
Addressing the family's reference to Supreme Court guidelines, the High Court clarified that those guidelines specifically pertain to inquiries into deaths resulting from police encounters. In this instance, the court observed that the case did not fit the typical definition of a police encounter, thus making strict adherence to those guidelines unnecessary.
The judgment further stated, "Learned magistrate appears to have left no stone unturned for eliciting the truth, and therefore, no further inquiry is required to be carried out at the hands of Police as contended on behalf of the petitioner."
This ruling brings closure to a prolonged legal battle, underscoring the judiciary's confidence in the magisterial inquiry process and its findings. It highlights the complexities involved in police operations during hostage crises and the legal frameworks governing such high-stakes situations.
