Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹15 Lakh Compensation To Mother Of Man Killed By Police Official In Alleged Self-Defence

Observing that allowing the act of policeman who shot a man without giving opportunity to arrest, "to go unchecked would effectively mean validating a death sentence, passed not in line with the due process of law", the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted Rs. 15 lakh compensation to deceased's mother.

It was alleged that, in 2012, a 22-year-old man was shot by a Punjab Police official while he was sitting in a barber shop, without giving any opportunity to surrender or making an attempt to arrest him.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "While it is true that the deceased was arraigned as an accused in 09 other cases, most of which pertain to robbery, and was also declared a Proclaimed Offender in two of them; however, the same does not give a right to the police officials to indulge in excesses to conduct his arrest. Moreover, the police officials form a part of a professional and trained force."

The Court further said, as such, "it can be reasonably assumed that they possess the ability to arrest a man, armed merely with a knife, without killing him, especially when they are armed with their service pistol."

"Allowing the act of respondent No.5 (constable who allegedly shot) to go unchecked would effectively mean validating a death sentence, passed not in line with the due process of law, but by the law enforcement agency donning the role of the judge, jury and executioner, it added.

Justice Brar further highlighted that it was only after efforts of deceased's mother that an FIR was registered against the erring officials and the matter was ordered to be investigated by the Crime Branch an not only has she lost her young son, for the last 12 years, she has had run from pillar to post to get the incident fairly investigated.

The Court was hearing plea of deceased man's mother seeking directions for a fair and impartial investigation of FIR  under Section 304 of IPC registered against policemen at  Amritsar after the High Court's direction.

Facts In Brief

It was claimed that Arvinder Pal Singh alias Lovely was shot dead by police personnel in a fake encounter on May 23, 2013. According to the petitioner, Lovely was sitting inside a barber shop when Head Constable Prem Singh and Head Constable Sandeep Singh (respondents No. 5 and 6) arrived at the scene.

The petition alleged that without issuing any warning, making an arrest attempt, or giving him a chance to surrender, Head Constable Prem Singh fired a shot at point-blank range, hitting Lovely in the chest. The gunshot proved fatal, resulting in his immediate death. 

Court's Observation

After hearing the submission, the Court noted that "It is a matter of record that the injury on the deceased had a black ring around it, which clearly indicates that the bullet was shot from a very small, perhaps point blank distance."

The Court said that while it is accused policemen's case that they warned the deceased multiple times before shooting at him, the bullet injuries are on his arm and chest. It is rather curious as to why, if it was at all required, did Head Constable Prem Singh not aim for the legs of the deceased.

"Additionally, it seems to be a considerable exaggeration to argue that the bullet pierced through the arm and entered the chest of the deceased deep enough to rupture the left lung and cause his death," it added.

The Court noted that "The initial version pertaining to the incident was that it occurred outside the barber shop. However, a perusal of the record indicates that during investigation, the owner of the said shop namely Gaurav Saini categorically stated that the deceased had a mobile phone charging inside and that the entire incident also occurred inside the shop."

In Absence Of Right To Live Secure Life All Rights Loses Meaning

 The judge highlighted that, the Constitution of India, by virtue of Article 21, grants a fundamental right to life, which would undoubtedly include the right to live a dignified, safe and secure life. In the absence thereof, all other rights and privileges lose meaning.

The Court relied on Prakash Kadam vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, [(2011) 6 SCC 189] to underscore that police officers cannot and should not be excused in the matters pertaining to extra-judicial killings, especially since they form a part of the law enforcement mechanism.

Adding that the petitioner is mother who has lost her 22-year-old son in an incident that occurred in the year 2013 ago, but her quest for justice still remains unfinished, the Court directed opined that "it is case for grant of compensation, as the death of the son of the petitioner was caused due to excesses on part of the State law enforcement agency."

The Court further directed the jurisdictional Magistrate to assess the second cancellation report filed in the FIR in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in Pawan Kharbanda vs. State of Punjab and another.

Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate Amicus Curiae.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5

 Title: Daljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others

Click here to read/download the order