Badlapur encounter: ‘Why was he shot in the head?’

A poster of Dy CM Devendra Fadnavis with a gun in hand displayed in Borivli. Pic/Nimesh Dave

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday heard the matter of Akshay Shinde's encounter based on the petition filed by Shinde's father alleging a fake encounter. The court raised questions and said it was hard to believe that the four cops couldn't overpower him. "He was not a strong person. While there is no intention to cast doubt, the police must clarify what exactly happened," the court said.

A divsion bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan expressed disbelief that Akshay Shinde could have snatched a pistol, which allegedly got unlocked during a scuffle. The court questioned why other police personnel did not overpower him and why he was shot in the head rather than in the leg.

IN PHOTOS: Local trains, flights affected as Mumbai hit by heavy rains

2 months agoPHOTO GALLERY

The court asked the public prosecutor, "What do you do in such situations?" The bench further remarked that this incident could not be treated as an encounter. Noting the post-mortem report, which suggested a point-blank shot, the court directed the police to register a cross FIR based on the father's
complaint.

The spot in Mumbra where Akshay Shinde was shot dead by PI Sanjay Shinde. Pic/Shadab Khan

The court first sought a timeline of the incident and inquired where exactly it took place. It was informed that the incident occurred near the Mumbra Bypass, and it took 25 minutes to transport Akshay Shinde to Shivaji Maharaj Hospital in Kalwa, where doctors declared him dead at 7.52 pm.

It was revealed that the bullet entered his head and exited from the left side. The court was also informed that Akshay Shinde fired a 9mm pistol belonging to API Nilesh More, who sustained an injury to his thigh. The court then questioned how the pistol got loaded. The public prosecutor explained that there are two ways to unlock the firearm, with one method requiring the slider to be pulled.

Discrepancies in FIR and statement made before the Court

During the hearing, the court was informed that Akshay Shinde had been handcuffed when taken from Taloja Jail, though the handcuffs were removed midway when he requested water. However, these details were not included in the FIR.

In his statement to the Mumbra police, Sanjay Shinde explained that he had been seated next to the driver when Akshay Shinde began causing a disturbance. At this point, API Nilesh More informed him of the situation, prompting him to stop the car and move to the back seat to calm Akshay Shinde down, during which the incident occurred. This sequence of events differs from the account given in court, highlighting discrepancies between the FIR and the statements presented to the bench. The court inquired whether Akshay Shinde's fingerprints would be found on the pistol and expressed hope that a hand wash test had been conducted. The public prosecutor confirmed that the test was performed at JJ hospital.

The court also asked if the hand wash samples were taken from all the officers involved and asked for details on whether Akshay Shinde was shot from a distance or at point-blank range. The court emphasised its desire for an impartial investigation, clarifying that while it did not question the police's involvement, it was seeking the truth. It also noted that the post-mortem report suggests Akshay Shinde was shot at point-blank range. The court ordered the preservation of all CCTV footage from the prison during the time Akshay Shinde was transported to court and then to the hospital.

Kin and experts speak

Akshay Shinde's father told mid-day, "We have approached the court and the case is going on. If the authorities would have followed the court procedures and if my son was found guilty they would have punished him. But killing this way was completely against the law. We just demand justice."

Lara Jesani, advocate at the Bombay High Court and general secretary of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Maharashtra said, "This case has attracted significant public attention, with civil society and Opposition groups questioning the state and police for their mishandling of the situation from the beginning."
She added, "The sudden encounter of the accused in such a manner demands an independent and thorough investigation. The Supreme Court has established guidelines regarding extrajudicial killings in the PUCL Maharashtra case. Allowing such killings to occur would undermine the rule of law, enabling police to impose a death penalty before a trial without establishing guilt."

Advocate Amit Katarnaware, who is representing Akshay Shinde, said, "Our only hope is the court, as we can't trust the state or police. We believe the alleged encounter was state-sponsored. The state is making decisions for its electoral gain. Why have they kept the police, judiciary, and other departments if they are making decisions on their own? The entire crime took place to gain attention and public sympathy. We hope the judiciary makes a fair and truthful decision and takes action against the police officers involved, as we have filed a petition against them."

Common questions raised by mid-day, HC

1. Why was he shot in the head?
2. How did the pistol get unlocked?
3. Why couldn't four policemen overpower him?
4. Was he handcuffed since he was accused of a serious offence?

7.52 pm
Time Akshay Shinde was declared dead on Monday

Questions raised by high court

. Why was Akshay Shinde shot in the head?
. How did the pistol get unlocked?
. Why couldn't four policemen overpower the 24-year-old?
. Was he handcuffed since he was accused of a serious offence?
. Was Shinde shot from a distance or at point-blank range?
. Why was there no crossfire?
. Were the hand wash samples taken from all the officers after the incident?