Body of Badlapur sexual assault case accused Akshay Shinde is brought to the JJ Hospital for postmortem, in Mumbai, Tuesday, Sept 24, 2024.
Credit: PTI Photo
Mumbai: With a barrage of sharp questions, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday raised serious questions about the sensational encounter killing of Badlapur sexual assault case accused Akshay Shinde, saying that it was hard to believe that he could not be overpowered by the police escort team inside the transport van.
In addition, the HC, which appeared critical about the police version of the chain of events of September 23, wanted to know why the accused was shot in the head, and not on their hands or legs first.
The court even went into minute details of the encounter, asking whether the firearm used by the police was a revolver or pistol.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan ripped through the police's account of the incident while hearing a petition filed by Akshay Shinde’s father Anna Shinde on Wednesday.
During the course of hearing, Justice Chavan, in oral observations, remarked: “The moment he pulled the first trigger, the other cops in the vehicle could have easily overpowered him. He [Akshay Shinde] wasn't of a huge build or strong man. This is very difficult to accept … How can we believe that four officers present in the vehicle couldn't overpower a single man? … This cannot be termed as an encounter."
“You said the accused fired three bullets towards the police. Only one hit the policeman. What about the other two? Ordinarily, for self-defence we fire at the legs. Where would one usually fire for self defence? Maybe on the hand or the leg,” the judge said.
Coming down heavily on the cops, court also said: “A layman cannot fire a pistol unlike a revolver which any Tom, Dick and Harry can do. A weak man cannot load the pistol as it needs strength … Why be so negligent and casual when you are escorting a man, who is accused of serious offences? What is the SOP? Was he handcuffed?”
“It was a fake encounter,” asserted Advocate Amit Katarnavare, representing Akshay Shinde’s family.
The court ordered subsequently that the probe into the killing of Shinde should be carried out in a fair and impartial manner. "We expect the investigation to be impartial ... If we see something ... We will be inclined to pass an order," the bench noted and posted the hearing for October 3.
The bench also directed the police to hand over the relevant case papers to the state CID from the Mumbra police station and the Thane police SIT to facilitate investigations.
Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar informed the court that two FIRs were registered, one under Section 307 of the BNS and an Accidental Death Report (ADR), and both are under investigations by the state CID.
However, the court said: “We are not suspecting the police of their activities, but come clean on all aspects.”