Can there be justice in the 2019 Hyderabad encounter case?

SC-appointed inquiry commission found holes in police version of events and directed that 10 policemen involved be prosecuted for murder. But the long history of impunity offers little hope

The apex court appointed an inquiry commission, headed by former Supreme Court Justice VS Sirpurkar, along with former Bombay High Court Justice RP Sondurbaldota and former director of CBI DR Kaarthikeyan, to investigate the events leading to the encounter of four accused in the brutal gangrape and murder of a young veterinarian in Hyderabad, in 2019. This report was submitted before the court, and copies provided to both parties on April 20.

The Commission investigation directed that the 10 police officers involved in the encounter be prosecuted for murder, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Commission found that the police version of events — that the accused were armed and were pelting stones at the police, who then fired at the accused in retaliation — to be “concocted”, and noted that the police had made a deliberate effort to suppress the fact of the juvenility of two of the accused.

Considering the public furore due to the crime, and the widespread support for the police officers’ swift “justice”, the Commission’s transparent investigation and final indictment of the officers is commendable. However, for the Commission’s report to have any impact on police impunity and to ensure accountability, the officers must face criminal prosecution.

Given the many hurdles in prosecution and conviction in cases of custodial death, there is enough cause to be wary about how this case might progress. Inquiry commissions in the past, such as the state government-appointed judicial commission (conducted by retired Justice VK Agarwal), to look into the killing of 17 alleged Naxalites by CRPF officers in June 2012, in Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, is a bleak reminder in this context. The Sarkeguda Commission report, submitted in 2019, found no evidence to suggest that the slain villagers were Naxals, and found the firing by the security forces to be unprovoked. Though the terms of reference of the committee were limited, and did not extend to the determination of culpability of the officers involved, no action has been taken on the basis of its findings.

Delays in prosecution can have a substantial impact on the quality of evidence, particularly in cases where powerful entities — such as the police — are being challenged. In cases of custodial death, often the families of the victims and other witnesses face duress and intimidation.

For instance, in the 2014 Valdaris custodial death case, a young man was crushed by a train as he allegedly tried to escape from police custody, after he was apprehended on accusations of theft. However, when the Bombay High Court considered the testimony of other detainees as well as the injuries on the body of the deceased as reflected in the post-mortem report, it found that the officers were liable to be charged under Section 302 of the IPC before the trial court. This was further clarified by the Supreme Court, which held that charges in this manner should be framed after hearing the accused. However, the matter has been pending before the trial court since 2020, with the prosecution unwilling to seek sanction from the state government to prosecute the officers on charges of murder, and the trial court delaying the framing of charges.

Accountability of security forces is an uphill task, and there is a tendency for the state to resist prosecution inaction or to hinder effective prosecution by prolonging the trial to the point of futility. NCRB’s Crime in India Report for 2020 records that there were zero convictions in cases of custodial death.

Police impunity persists because of a lack of strong accountability mechanisms to deter police action and systemic complicity amongst state institutions, to turn a blind eye in times of excesses. In the Hyderabad encounter case, the killing of the accused was also justified as righteous, in light of the abhorrent facts of the crime they were suspected of. After the extra-judicial killing, members of the public lauded and showered flower petals on the officers and chanted “police zindabad”. For the people supporting the cops, the police were no less than vigilante figures, like those valorised in Bollywood action films, delivering quick solutions for an act of unthinkable violence against a young woman. In this context, facts such as the young age of the boys, and police irregularities in the investigation might be seen as mere technicalities. The incident was not condemned by the state government at the time, and a minister is already expressing apprehension about contravening public opinion in taking action against the police officers indicted by the Inquiry Commission. This implicit acquiescence to police excesses, makes the government and even the judiciary, at times, resistant to prosecuting and punishing errant officers.

More than two years have passed since the Hyderabad encounter, but the prosecution of the officers, as recommended by the inquiry commission report, is still out of reach. The Supreme Court directed the report to be transferred to the Telangana High Court, ostensibly for the latter to take appropriate action about the subsequent steps for the investigation and prosecution of the officers involved. There is a tremendous responsibility on the courts and state government to ensure that the next steps are carried out without delay or prejudice, despite heightened public sentiments in favour of the police officers.

The writer is a research associate with Project 39A, National Law University, Delhi