The Bombay High Court raised serious concerns over the killing of Akshay Shinde, accused in the Badlapur sexual assault case, during a police encounter. On September 25, 2024, a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan questioned whether the shoot-out was justified and emphasized that Shinde’s death could have been avoided.
Key Observations by the Court:
- Questioning the Use of Deadly Force: The court asked why Akshay Shinde was shot in the head instead of being incapacitated by shooting him in the hand or legs. They found it hard to believe that he managed to seize a police officer’s pistol and open fire, raising doubts about the police’s version of events.
- Challenge to Police Narrative: While the court did not suspect foul play at this stage, they expressed skepticism over the claim that Shinde, an ordinary person, could have overpowered a trained police officer and fired a pistol. Justice Chavan noted that handling and firing a pistol requires considerable strength, something a layperson might not easily do.
- Probe into Shinde’s Death: The Maharashtra CID is investigating the incident, with two FIRs filed—one for attempted murder under Section 307 and an Accidental Death Report (ADR). The court demanded transparency in the investigation and urged the authorities to take Akshay Shinde’s father’s complaint seriously, as he has requested an FIR against the officers involved.
- Post-Mortem Details: The court inquired about the timeline of events following the shoot-out, including the transfer of Shinde’s body to JJ Hospital for an autopsy, which was reportedly video-graphed. The cause of death was confirmed as bleeding, with a bullet piercing Shinde’s head.
- Skepticism Over Police Procedure: The court questioned the standard operating procedures (SOPs) followed by the police while escorting Shinde, given his status as an accused in a serious case. They asked if he was handcuffed and why more caution wasn’t exercised.
- Self-Defense Claims: While the police claimed Shinde fired three bullets at them, the court asked why only one bullet hit an officer and where the other two shots landed. The bench also questioned the officer’s decision to shoot in the head for self-defense, rather than targeting non-lethal areas like the arms or legs.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for October 3, urging the police to conduct an impartial and thorough investigation, with a warning that failure to do so could lead to further legal action.
This encounter has raised significant legal and ethical questions regarding police conduct in handling high-profile accused individuals.
Leave a Reply