IndiaTomorrow.net,
New Delhi, July 25: The Supreme Court of India on Monday asked the Central government and Madhya Pradesh government besides three other respondents as to why a CBI enquiry was not ordered in the Bhopal encounter of last year in which eight alleged under-trial members of banned SIMI were gunned down.
Hearing the Special Leave Petition filed by Mehmooda Mohammed Salim Mucchhale, mother of one of the under-trials killed in the police encounter, through Advocate Sidharth Dave, an apex court bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued the order.
In the morning of 31st Oct 2016, eight under-trials, all lodged in the Bhopal central jail, were shot dead by police on the outskirts of the state capital hours after they allegedly broke their cell and escaped the prison.
“The killings of under-trial prisoners in police encounters affect the credibility of the rule of law and the administration of the criminal justice system,” argued the petitioner and urged the apex court to “Direct the respondents to investigate under its own supervision by forming SIT and or by CBI to conduct investigation in the alleged encounter.”
Other three respondents to the petition are: Inspector General of Police, Bhopal; Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and Principal Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Bhopal.
The petitioner challenged the 21st Feb 2017 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which dismissed the petitioner’s plea against the one-man commission set up by the state government.
“The High Court has erred in not examining the case on its merits when there is serious violation of the directives and guideline issued by this Hon’ble Court…The one man enquiry is formed only with a view to cover up the case, moreover when the petitioner and other relatives of the allegedly encountered SIMI under-trial prisoners have filed documents and other electronic evidence before the Commission and the Commission is not bothered to hear them and not afforded any opportunity to their counsel to cross examine official witnesses who appeared before the Commission,” read the petition.
The petitioner also questioned the instant reward by the state government to the policemen involved in the encounter.
“Whether the promotion and instant rewards given by the State Government to the police officials involves in the said encounter is against the spirit and directions of this Hon’ble Court judgment in the case of PUCL Vs. State of Maharashtra…” asked the petitioner.
“When a police encounter occurs, it is important that a complaint is registered; the evidence is preserved; independent and fair investigation takes place; victims are informed and inquest is conducted,” the counsel argued.
