This isn’t an encounter: Court’s tough questions over Badlapur accused’s death

The Bombay High Court pulled up Mumbai police over the custodial death of the Badlapur sexual assault accused, saying there appeared to be foul play and the incident could not be “termed an encounter”. The court also directed the police to preserve the CCTV footage from the time the accused, Akshay Shinde, was brought out of the jail till he was declared dead at Shivaji Hospital.
Police said Shinde, accused of sexually abusing two girls at a Badlapur school, was being taken to Badlapur from Taloja jail when he snatched Assistant Police Inspector (API) Nilesh More’s pistol and fired at the escorting police team, injuring three cops. Shinde was then killed in retaliatory firing by police.
After the Chief Public Prosecutor, representing the state, narrated the sequence of events, the court said, “This is hard to believe. Prima facie, there is foul play. A layman cannot fire a pistol, unlike a revolver which any tom, dick and harry can do. A weak man cannot load a pistol as it needs strength.”
The High Court was hearing the petition filed by the accused’s father, Anna Shinde, who sought a probe by a Special Investigation Team into his son’s death in the “fake encounter”. The petitioner claimed Shinde was killed in view of the forthcoming Assembly elections.
The court said that the accused was not a “strong man” and could have been overpowered by the four police officers after he pulled the first trigger. “This cannot be termed as an encounter. This is not an encounter,” the bench said.
Emphasising that it was hard to believe the police narrative, the court further said, “You said the accused fired three bullets towards the police. Only one hit the cop. What about the other two? Was there any ricochet?”
The two-judge bench said the police officer, Sanjay Shinde, should have aimed at the legs or the hands of the accused instead of the head as that was the SOP.
“One of the officers was involved in an encounter? Ask the officer about it. How can we believe that 4 officers present in the vehicle couldn’t overpower a single man?” the court said.
Replying to the bench, the Chief Public Prosecutor said, “The officer did not think this, and he just reacted. It was an on the spot reaction.”
The court asked the state to collect the Call Data Records (CDRs), including that of the driver of the police vehicle. The matter will be heard next Thursday. “We aren’t even remotely suspecting the activities of the police. We only want to know the truth. Just come clean,” the court said.