HYDERABAD: The VS Sirpurkar Commission’s report that the four accused in Disha’s rape and murder in November 2019, were shot dead by the police in a fake encounter later, evoked mixed reactions from the advocates’ fraternity. While some hailed the recommendations that those who shot the four accused dead should be prosecuted for murder, there were others who termed the report as biased.
High Court Advocate Kiran Kranti said that there were inconsistencies in the Commission’s report. “The report is biased as it had said that the investigation looked only into the loopholes in the police version and did not come up with any conclusion based on facts. “The Commission being a fact-finding body should shed more light on what actually had happened instead of merely stating that there were inconsistencies in the police version. The commission did not establish the facts,” he said.
But Senior Counsel L Ravichander expressed happiness over the contents of the report which he said were an answer to those who take the law into their hands. Stating that the ‘Rule of Law’ had turned into ‘Rule of Jungle’ in the investigation of the case, he said: “Police put forth a theory that they had shot the four accused in self-defence when they snatched their firearms and began firing at them. If this act is condoned, tomorrow the police would offer the same explanation in another case after taking the law into their hands.”
Quoting Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which says “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law,” the Counsel said that the suspects were no longer alive to defend themselves. Hoping that the case would move in the right direction, the Counsel said, “Commission and Supreme Court have spoken loud and clear and now the ball is in the court of the State High Court.”
Supreme Court panel findings
Three of the four accused were minors.
The Commission recommend all ten police officers be tried for murder.
Only symbolic compliance of apex court judgement on encounter killings.
The allegation of snatching pistols from policemen is unbelievable and artificial.
Deceased accused were not familiar with firearms, thus would not be able to operate the pistol easily.
There are irregularities pertaining to the conduct of medical examination of the deceased.
The suspects, at the time of arrest, were entitled to a number of constitutional and statutory rights that were violated by the police personnel.
There were also serious violations of law at the time of granting police custody by the Judicial Magistrate.
The claim that the deceased suspects assaulted the policemen, that the two policemen sustained injuries as a result and that they were treated at hospitals is false.
Report says that “there did not arise any occasion for exercising the right of private defence”.
The deceased accused could not have fired and run simultaneously.
It cannot also be believed that the deceased accused opened fire towards the police party.
There is grave suspicion that the best evidence in respect of CCTV footages, video recording of inquest and crime scene etc has been withheld from the Commission.