Abstract
Vikas Dubey born on 26 December 1964 had been an Indian-sheeter crime boss turned
gangster turned politicians based out of the Kanpur Dehat district in the Indian state of Uttar
Pradesh. In 1990 first criminal case was registered against him by the time of his encounter
he had over 60 criminal cases against his accord. Dubey was primarily accused of killing
inside the Shivli police station the then minister of State and BJP leader Santosh Shukla in
2001.
Vikas Dubey was also accused of killing eight policemen during an attempted arrest, the
Uttar Pradesh police proclaimed him as an absconder with a bounty of around 5 lakh rupees.
Vikas Dubey had been on the run since July 3 Kanpur encounter. The criminal was arrested
in Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh after a long seven-day hunt.
The gangster was being brought from Kanpur to Ujjain where the extrajudicial killing took
place.
The process or act of killing an accused outside the judicial process is termed extrajudicial
killing. This act came into practice during British rule in India to suppress the voice of
dissent. They are many times referred to as “fake encounters”, this has become an enormous
concern for the judicial system in the country as it deprives the accused of the right to a fair
and free trial. The right to a free and fair trial is said to be a sine qua non of Article 21 which
guarantees the Right to life and personal liberty as a fundamental right under the Indian
Constitution.
The other perspective is that extra-judicial killings should be rewarded, it emerges from a
lack of faith in the judiciary as many believe that the court will not provide a speedy justice
Section 96 of the India Penal Code says, ‘ Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defence.’ This becomes complimentary with section 46 of the
Criminal procedure code which says “Arrest how made.
(1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually
touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested unless there be a submission to the
custody by word or action.
(2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the
arrest, such police officer or other people may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.
(3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of
an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.”
The Supreme Court of India (-hereinafter Supreme Court) in the case of K. Anbazhagan .v.
Supdt of Police observed that “if a criminal trial is not fair and free from bias. The criminal
justice of the country would be at stake, the confidence of the public in the system would be
shaken and it will bring desolation to the rule of law.”
Reasons for encounters :
One of the major supporters is the many citizens who lack faith in the judicial system and
think that police can also be the court of law and provide justice that has political backing.
Many leaders of political parties project encounter numbers as their own achievement in
maintaining law and order which in turns promises them the support of the general public in
the next elections.
The police are very often rewarded through cash incentives and awarded through
promotions which have led to hero-worshipping behaviour which shows the police as the
“NAYAK” as society sees them as heroes doing the job of cleaning up the Indian society by
killing the criminals. They are projected as heroes on the silver screens, however, is the
accused not guilty until proven otherwise?
The Indian Constitution is the supreme power in the land and it is the duty of every citizen
as well as the police to uphold it. Through extra-judicial killing isn’t Article 21 as the Right
to Life and Personal Liberty being violated.
In the case-law of PUCL v State of Maharashtra 2014, The Supreme Court of India dealt
with writ petitions which questioned 99 encounter killings by the Mumbai police in which
135 alleged criminals were shot dead between 1995 and 1997.
In the case of Vikas Dubey, he was arrested in 2017 where the government of Uttar Pradesh
booked him under the Gangsters Act and Anti-Social Activities (prevention) act.
Dubey challenged his arrest and the high court gave an order of no coercive action against
him, however, he was arrested again in July 2020 near the Mahabaleshwar jyotirlinga
temple in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. Fearing an encounter, a petition was filed by him in the
Supreme Court which requested security for him and a CBI investigation.
This led to the day of 10 July 2020, where Vikas Dubey was being transported from kanji to
Ujjain, however, the vehicle carrying him got into an accident which led to the overturning
of the police vehicle with him inside. This allegedly gave him an opportunity to run and
snatch a pistol from the policemen who was fixing the flat tyre which resulted in shots being
shot from both side, He was killed in retaliatory firing and two STF personnel were injured.
Visuals after the incident showed Dubey being taken away on a stretcher to the emergency
ward of the Hallett Hospital in Kanpur. Dinesh Kumar, a senior police officer in Kanpur,
said the hospital’s doctors confirmed Dubey’s death.
After this incident, an investigation was led by the retired Supreme Court judge B.S.
Chauhan in order to look into the matter. The judicial commission also included judge
Shashi Kant Agarwal and Indian Police Service officer K. L. Gupta. The Justice B S
Chauhan inquiry commission found no evidence of wrongdoing by Uttar Pradesh police in
the encounter killings of gangster Vikas Dubey and his five associates.
TheSupreme Court of India examined the case of 1,528 alleged extrajudicial killings carried
out by the police and security forces in Manipur in two landmark judgements in 2016 and
- It was a historic step towards addressing grave human rights violations and a key
turning point to come to terms with past impunity. The cases were brought to the Supreme
Court in 2012 by victims, their families and nongovernmental groups in Manipur. Some of
the cases date back to 1979 and the most recent ones are from 2012. The victims’ families
and human rights organizations around the world have applauded the historic judgments,
some of which have been waiting for their right to truth, justice and redress for almost 40
years. an interpretation would be in clear violation of basic principles of the rule of law in a
democratic society, and contrary to international legal obligations binding on India.
International treaty law, such as theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) ratified by India in 1979, provide an unequivocal obligation to bring those
responsible to justice, along with the chain of command, and to provide reparation to the
victims and their families. The protection of the rights to remedy and reparation has been
further elaborated in consistent universal jurisprudence. What is more, there is not only an
obligation to investigate when presented with allegations of extrajudicial killings, the state
has a positive obligation to investigate grave human rights violations irrespective of whether
or not a formal complaint has been lodged. Lastly, as repeatedly pointed out by the Indian
Supreme Court, the victims right to know the truth has gained increasing protection in
international law as captured in the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Study on the
right to the truth
The Supreme Court has also laid down sixteen guidelines that are required to be followed in
cases of death by police encounter for an effective and independent investigation in the case
of PUCL.v. In the state of Maharashtra, some of the guidelines are as follows
1.Whenever a police party receives any information or tip-off regarding any criminal
activities which relate to the commission of grave offence they shall reduce such
information in writing.
2.If an encounter takes place pursuant to the information received by the police and there is
any use of firearms by the police party then in such case FIR must be registered for proper
criminal investigation and such FIR should be forwarded to court without any delay.
3.An investigation into such death should be carried out by an independent investigation
CID team or police team of another police station.
4.The NHRC must be immediately informed about the encounter.
5.If the action amounts to an offence under IPC, disciplinary action must be taken against
the police officer found guilty and for the time being the police officer must be suspended.
A Telangana veterinarian was gang-raped and murdered by four people. The accused burnt
her body in Shamshabad on November 27. On November 28 her charred body was
recovered from there. The four accused were lorry workers, all four in their twenties who
were arrested the next day.
In the early hours of December 6, the 4 accused were killed in a police encounter. According
to the police, the men, who were apparently not handcuffed, tried escaping. It is also being
claimed that the accused men snatched one of the policemen’s guns and fired upon the cops.
Hence, the policemen were forced to open fire which resulted in the encounter. The legality
of the police action is under a scanner before the Supreme Court as well as the Telangana
High Court.
- The state government has also constituted a special investigation team (SIT) to probe
the encounter. - National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is also conducting a probe into the
matter. - Supreme Court has now ordered the proceedings before both the Telangana High
Court and NHRC to stay till further orders.
The public all over the country is rejoicing at the killing of the criminals by the police.
There is a dire need for judicial and police reforms which are needed to rebuild the public
trust and stop them from casting aspersion. In a democracy like India where the Constitution
acts as a guiding light and guarantees justice according to the due process of law. It should
be the responsibility of every organ to act within its constitutional responsibility.