New Delhi: It was a textbook case of what is usually called a ‘police encounter’ under the Yogi Adityanath government in Uttar Pradesh since 2017. A police patrolling team intercepts an incoming bike late at night. The bike carries two men. The police use a torch to signal them to stop at a check post. Instead of stopping, the bike speeds ahead. The police chase them. Upon finding themselves cornered, the suspects leave the bike and try to escape on foot. The police ask them to surrender but they fire shots at them with country-made pistols. The police escape unharmed but shoot both suspects in their legs, apparently in self-defence. Police recover country-made pistols and stolen items from them. A case of attempt to murder is lodged against the suspects for shooting at the police with the intent to kill. The suspects are sent to jail. But only this time, the story fell apart. It was proven to be a fake encounter.Almost five years after police in Kanpur shot two men in the legs in an alleged ‘encounter’, a local court has ruled that the illegal weapon claimed to have been recovered from them had been was actually taken by the police from the malkhana, or evidence room, from a 2007 case and planted on the two men. In other words, the same weapon was produced as evidence in two separate cases, 13 years apart.A court on April 1 acquitted Kanpur residents Kundan Singh and Amit Singh of all charges after ruling that they were falsely implicated by the police by showing false recovery of weapons from them. While Amit was out on bail, Kundan had been in jail since 2020.Additional sessions judge Vinay Singh said that the way in which an illegal pistol linked to a 2007 case (which was decided in 2018) was shown as having been recovered from Kundan and Amit, made the entire incident “suspicious” and clearly pointed to the police falsely implicating them. The court said that a “detailed and high-level investigation” was necessary against the concerned police inspector and the entire police team that took part in the operation.Judge Singh directed the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur to get a detailed and documented investigation of the entire case done either by himself or through a competent officer. A copy of the probe should be submitted to the court in three months. If, after the investigation, it appears that the police had illegally taken the pistol from the malkhana and filed a fake case, then an FIR will be lodged against the concerned officer and his team, the court said in its 25-page verdict, a copy of which is with The Wire.The police’s version of events leading to the fake encounterOn October 21, 2020, a police team led by inspector Gyan Singh, who was on patrol duty that night, reached the Mariampur tri-junction and began checking vehicles. The police noticed a motorbike approaching them from the Kakadeo area and used a torchlight to signal it to stop. The bike had two people on it. Instead of stopping, the bike sped towards the Mariampur hospital.The police team, alarmed by the suspicious activity, quickly began chasing them in their jeep. As the two headed towards Kakadeo, the police used a loudspeaker to ask them to stop. The two instead headed towards Armapur. The police passed on the information to the Armapur police station team, which, led by inspector Ajeet Kumar Verma, intercepted the bike but the two suspects drove towards the Armapur Estate.After riding for around 500 metres, the suspects, having found themselves cornered near the Kendriya Vidyalaya crossing, abandoned the motorcycle. The police asked them to surrender. But they pulled out pistols and fired two shots at the police with the intention to kill. The policemen narrowly escaped the shots fired by the two suspects.When asked to surrender again, they started reloading their pistols. Compelled to fire back, inspector Singh said that he fired two shots from his service pistol carefully aiming at the legs of the two suspects. They fell to the ground and started groaning in pain. Blood oozed out from the right legs, below the knee, of both the suspects. The police grabbed some cloth from their vehicle and wrapped it around the wounds of the injured suspects to stop the bleeding.The two men were identified as Kundan and Amit. The Police found two gold chains and Rs 1,000 in cash (10 notes of Rs 100) in Amit’s pockets. A 315 bore country-made pistol was in his right hand. A live cartridge was found inside it, while an empty shell of 315 bore was found lying nearby. A gold chain and a part of a chain were found with Kundan. He held a 315 bore pistol in his right hand. It had a live cartridge. The pistol carried the smell of burnt gunpowder. The illegal weapons and other items were seized and put inside sealed plastic boxes. Kundan and Amit were taken into custody at around 11:20 pm. “During the arrest, the orders and instructions of the National Human Rights Commission and the Hon’ble High Court were followed to the letter,” the police said in the FIR.Three cases were lodged against the two men, on the charges of attempted murder and for carrying illegal arms. The police said that the gold chains recovered from them were part of theft and snatchings carried out by them. The case went to trial in 2022. The prosecution produced 10 witnesses against the two accused. All of them were policemen. There was no independent public witness.Loopholes in the police’s storyThe court found several loopholes in the police story. First, the police did not record the time and place of their departure from their respective police stations in the recovery memo. After examining the testimonies of seven police men, the court said it was clear that none of them had mentioned the time or dispatch report number regarding their departure from the police station on the night of the incident.Two, the court noted that the police did not make any “proper effort” to obtain independent witnesses even though security guards of the Kendriya Vidyalaya were in the vicinity and residences of teachers were also nearby. Police also did not mention the name or address of the public witnesses who allegedly refused to stand as witnesses when they requested them.Three, the lawyers for the accused persons pointed out that it was odd that while the two men allegedly fired at the police with the intent to kill, none of the policemen received injuries. Their vehicles were also intact. In his testimony, inspector Singh, the complainant in the case, said that Kundan and Amit had fired at the police. While one of them fired at him, the other fired at the back of inspector Verma, Singh claimed. The court did not find this credible. This description contradicted the “normal and natural situation” that might have arisen when the police surrounded the two suspects, said the court.When the police team had encircled the suspects, they would be facing the miscreants and would not have their backs turned to them, said the court. The prosecution failed to explain why inspector Verma was standing with his back towards the accused. “If he was standing with his back towards the accused, then it can be assumed that there was no threat to the policemen from the accused, apart from this no other assumption can be made,” said judge Singh.Four, the court also found contradictions in the statements of two police inspectors about them seeing the suspects using pistols. Five, the court noted that although CCTV cameras were installed at the crossing, no such footage was filed on record by the prosecution. The CCTV footage would have clearly provided evidence if the police team had been chasing the accused, said the court.Six, and the most important point that worked in the favour of the two accused persons, was that one of the pistols shown to have been recovered from their possession on October 21, 2020 had already been marked with a black sketch pen as object exhibit “1 CMM KNR 13.05.2014.”The pistol had been seized in connection with a 2007 case under the Arms Act against a person named Rishabh Srivastava, who was acquitted by a local court on September 25, 2018. Since the pistol was illegal, it should have been destroyed as per the rules after the expiry of the period of appeal, said judge Singh.“Under no circumstance, it was possible to recover that illegal weapon from the accused in the year 2020,” said the judge. It appeared, the judge said, that police inspector Singh obtained the pistol from the malkhana or in some other way and falsely implicated the accused person in the encounter case by showing a false recovery. The police failed to explain how the said pistol, which was in possession of the police, reached the accused.“In such a situation, the prosecution story that the accused attacked the police with the intention to kill them is completely shattered. The prosecution story is not reliable in this regard and the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution does not inspire confidence in the prosecution story,” the court said.
