Bombay HC questions police’s account in Badlapur ‘encounter’ case

Badlapur sexual abuse and encounter case: During a hearing on Wednesday, the Bombay High Court expressed scepticism regarding the police’s version of the incident involving the prime accused Akshay Shinde, who was killed in a “retaliatory firing.” The court noted, “It is hard to believe… It requires strength for the slider to pop. Cannot fire a pistol unless he is trained.”
A bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan emphasised, “This can’t be termed as an encounter… This is not an encounter.” The judges called for an impartial investigation, stating, “If we see something… we will be inclined to pass an order.”
They ordered investigators to examine multiple abrasions found on Akshay Shinde’s body, in addition to the entry and exit wounds, and mandated that an FIR be registered against the police officer involved. The court also questioned whether the deceased had experience with firearms, remarking, “If he has pulled… he must have had some idea… it is difficult to visualise unless the safety was kept open.”
The court noted that the panchanama indicated a pistol was found in blood, yet the forensic officer could not lift any fingerprints. The court inquired, “What was the procedure followed in lifting the fingerprints? Have you taken the fingerprints of the deceased?” In response, the public prosecutor stated he would need to seek instructions on this matter, prompting the court to ask, “How long will it take? Why have you not transferred the papers to CID? We were under the impression that CID is instructing you.”
•The Bombay High Court raised doubts about the Thane Police’s account of events, stating, “It is hard to believe… It requires strength for the slider to pop. Cannot fire a pistol unless he is trained. Revolver is different. He cannot put the slider back.”
• The Thane Police contended that accused Akshay Shinde had snatched an “old pistol” and fired it. In response, the Bombay High Court posed critical questions: “Whether the deceased (Akshay Shinde) took the pistol, loaded it, and fired?”
The court further inquired, “There is a string attached to the pistol to prevent stealing. Was it there? Was there a lanyard?” After receiving a negative response, the court remarked, “So why was it not there? Why should you be so careless?”
• The Bombay HC questioned Hiten Venegaonkar, who was representing the police, about the details of the incident. The court asked, “According to you, he (Akshay Shinde) fired three bullets. Only one hit the police officer. What about the others? Whether there was a ricochet injury or was it a direct fire?”
• The Bombay HC challenged the police’s claim of “self-defence,” stating that typically, an accused should be shot below the knee. The court questioned, “Why was the accused shot in the head directly and not in the legs or arms first? We understand when a layman does it, but the police officer exactly knows where to fire.”
In defence of the police officer’s actions, Venegaonkar responded, “He did not have time to think… He was sitting right in front.”
• The court asserted that the shootout involving the accused could have been avoided, questioning why the police did not attempt to overpower him first. The bench asked, “How could we believe that the police couldn’t overpower the accused, who were trained in firing?”
(All quotes in this news article were reported by Bar and Bench)
Anna Shinde, through lawyer Amit Katranvare, has filed a petition alleging that his son, Akshay Shinde, was killed in a ‘fake encounter’ by Thane police on September 23 and is demanding a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the case.
The 23-year-old Akshay Shinde was arrested on August 17, five days after he allegedly sexually abused two girls in a school toilet.