Shravasti ‘half-encounter’: High court rap forces rethink in police paperwork

The Lucknow bench’s August 13 order, in which Justice Subhash Vidyarthi flagged 10 major loopholes — ranging from “13 cops in one vehicle” to “two perfect shots in a moonlit night” — is now being seen as a case study in how inconsistencies in FIRs, charge sheets and affidavits can undermine a police version.

The scathing remarks by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on the Shravasti “half-encounter” have put the UP Police’s much-touted encounter policy under fresh scrutiny and prompted a rethink within the department and the state government’s legal team on how such cases are documented and defended in court.

The policy itself may not be rolled back, but the manner in which encounter cases are presented before courts is likely to change. (For representation)

The policy itself may not be rolled back, but the manner in which encounter cases are presented before courts is likely to change.

The Lucknow bench’s August 13 order, in which Justice Subhash Vidyarthi flagged 10 major loopholes — ranging from “13 cops in one vehicle” to “two perfect shots in a moonlit night” — is now being seen as a case study in how inconsistencies in FIRs, charge sheets and affidavits can undermine a police version.

Senior officers acknowledge that poor drafting, copy-paste narratives and weak affidavits are giving an easy handle to courts to question bona fides of the entire action.

A senior state government counsel said, “Half-encounter cannot be justified with half-baked paperwork. The court did not say the encounter was fake, but said our story does not add up. We need to present facts with evidence, not filmy narrative.”

Pattern under scanner

The high court observed what it described as a pattern: “Day in and day out... police apprehend a person, it gives rise to another FIR alleging accused indulged in indiscriminate firing against police team. Normally, not even a pellet touches the uniform of any police person, and all escape unhurt. The police fire one shot, and it hits the accused on his knee or below it.”

Data shows hundreds of such “half-encounters” — where accused are shot in leg to prevent escape — have been reported in the last few years. While police call it effective deterrence against crime, courts are increasingly asking for scientific corroboration.

Where cops went wrong in Shravasti case

Police faults in the Shravasti case flagged by the high court have become a checklist for future reforms.

- Impossible logistics shown in the FIR, claiming 13 personnel travelled in one patrolling vehicle.

- Disproportionate force — 23 policemen to catch one man on an e-rickshaw with a country-made pistol, yet claiming they had to hide and seek reinforcement.

- No scientific evidence to support the shooting claim, leading the court to order a test of SHO Ashwini Kumar Dubey’s firing capability from 15 metres at night.

- Confession on gunshot wounds, recorded while the accused was lying injured and surrounded by 23 cops, with the rape allegation added later even though the original FIR, filed within 61 minutes, did not mention it.

- No compliance with Supreme Court guidelines for probing encounters causing death or grievous injury, and rewarding all 23 policemen before the inquiry.

Checklist for future cases

- Mandatory videography of the encounter site, seizure and injuries, along with FSL and ballistic reports.

- Ballistic matching of the 9mm service pistol with the country-made weapon allegedly used by the accused, documentation of wound size and preparation of detailed site maps showing distances.

- Use of separate vehicles, body-worn cameras and GPS logs to establish the movement of police teams, instead of showing 13 personnel travelling in one vehicle.

- No immediate confession of the injured accused, and medical examination to be done before any statement.

- Legal vetting of FIR before filing attempt-to-murder case against accused who allegedly fired at police, to avoid identical templates.