Unfettered Powers Of The Police Under The Crpc – An Analysis by - Meghana Vincent
Unfettered
Powers Of The Police Under The Crpc – An Analysis
Authored by - Meghana
Vincent
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
1.
Introduction…………………………………………..3
2.
Objective……………………………………………..4
3.
Research Questions…………………………………..4
4.
Discussion and Analysis……………………………..4
5.
Conclusion……………………………………………15
Introduction
Despite the passage of two years since
the horrifying tragedy, George Floyd is still a name that stands out in
people's thoughts. Although there are many regrettable instances of police
brutality in the US, India is not far away. According to Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution[1],
an individual's right to life and liberty is his or her most important and
indisputable natural right. In order to guarantee that this fundamental right
of the individual is preserved and that there is a legal route to justice in
the event, that those rights are violated, laws and codes like the Indian Penal
Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter CrPC) were passed. The
Criminal Procedure Code entrusts the responsibility of ensuring the safety and
enforcing the laws to maintain order at ground level to the police. To put it
bluntly, they are supposed to be the guardians of the laymen and the first
people that the people should feel free to reach out to, in case there is a
violation of their rights.
But is that actually the case? Do the
people of our country feel safe enough to approach the police when problems
arise? The answer is a simple no. This is mainly due to the growing lack of
trust in the police, especially in the recent few decades. The rising cases of
custodial deaths, extra-judicial killings, police brutality and insensitivity
to the general public are some of the major reasons. Why is this the case? Has
the CrPC, in its goal to ensure just proceedings granted excess powers to the
police? So much that there is enough scope to misuse it and still claim it as
legal? Have the lawmakers failed in their goal to ensure the safety and
security of the people [especially the underprivileged]? What can be the
possible solutions which can be put into force in order to better this
situation? This paper is an attempt to answer all such questions and provide
some clarity.
Objective
This paper shall primarily focus on
the powers bestowed on police under the CrPC[2]
and its excessive misuse. It shall also analyse and discuss about the present
state of affairs and the laws which have been used to justify those actions.
The paper shall be divided into 2 parts with each part delving into detail
about a particular research question.
Research
Questions
The following are the research questions for
this paper:
1.
Misuse of powers of arrest given to the police under
CrPC with a special emphasis on Section 46.
2.
Are the police violating their given powers of
investigation? Is custodial torture seen as a means of an end?
Discussion
and analysis
1.Misuse of
powers of arrest given to the police under CrPC with a special emphasis on
Section 46.
One term which plays a very significant
role in obtaining a justice. A word which is very dear to the police – arrest.
In layman’s terms, arrest basically refers to the act of bringing someone into
custody when there is a suspicion that they have committed a crime or other
offence[3].
It is carried out when someone is detained for acting unlawfully. It is to be
noted that there has been no attempt to define arrest in either the Indian
Penal Code [4](hereinafter
IPC) nor the CrPC. Though there is no definition per se, an entire chapter –
Chapter 5[5]
(containing Sections 41 – 60A) of CrPC is dedicated to the arrest of persons.
It deals with the powers and obligations that the police have, when it comes to
making arrests, who can be arrested and how the arrest should be made.
Basically, arrest can be classified
into two types – arrest with a warrant and arrest without a warrant. Section
41(2) of CrPC[6]
states that,
‘subject to the condition in Section 42, [7]a
person cannot be arrested without a warrant and an order of the magistrate in
case of non-cognizable offence and where a complaint is made’.[8] In
order to arrest a person in non-cognizable and bailable offences, it is
mandatory for the police to get a warrant from the Magistrate. Only after that,
can he proceed with the arrest. This a considerably just provision which
protects the rights of the arrestee / the accused. However, when it comes to
misuse of police powers, the main sections to be concerned with, are Sections
41 and 46. Section 41 of the CrPC deals with the powers of the police to arrest
a person without warrant. Section 41(1) [9]of CrPC lays down the
various grounds under which a person can be arrested by police’s own discretion
without requiring a warrant. It is usually done in case of a cognizable
offence, when a reasonable complaint is made or when a piece of credible
information has been received.[10] This
section also gives excess powers to the police due to the vagueness of its
terms. Section 41(1)(b)(i), states that, ‘the police officer has reason to
believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such
person has committed the said offence[11]’.
This is followed by Section 41(1)(b)(ii) which says ‘the police office is
satisfied that such arrest is necessary….’.[12] One thing which can be
inferred from this is that, there is no fixed definition for terms like “reasonable
suspicion” and “upto the police’s discretion”. Hence, their meanings
are very subjective in nature and end up depending on the whims and fancies of
the police officers. There are also cases where even though there is no formal
complaint by the victims, police end up arresting people just because [13]they “suspect” them. These
2 are the most frequently used loopholes in this section which lead to the
unfettered powers of the police.
Following this comes Section 46 of CrPC which
deals with how an arrest is made. Section 46(1) states that ‘In making an
arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch
or confine the body of the person to be arrested…’[14]
Section 46(2) adds to it by stating that, ‘If such person forcibly resists
the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police
officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest’.[15]
This clause basically allows the police to use brutal force and potentially
injure the person if he/she attempts to escape from arrest. It is followed by
clause 3 which is considered as the most arbitrary and abused part of the
section. It says that, ‘Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the
death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or
with imprisonment for life.’[16]
While this clause was originally enacted to ensure the safety and security
of the police when dealing with the armed and absconded arrestees, it has
completely lost its nobility these days. Instead of using this provision in the
rarest of the rare escape cases, the police indulge in a lot of unnecessary
encounters [also known as extra-judicial killings] and justify it under the
guise of Section 46(3). Section 46(3) gives the police a deeply unsettling
green light to end the life of someone who has just been merely accused of
a crime, even before they have been tried and found guilty in court. While some
may claim that this complies with Article 21's "process established by
law," the debate is far from over. According to the Supreme Court,
"process established by law" must[17]
be "fair, just, and reasonable" rather than "fanciful,
arbitrarily, or oppressively." The impact of the law on fundamental rights
should be taken into consideration while evaluating it rather than only its
purpose. Section 46(3) violates these constitutional principles by allowing the
police to execute a person charged with a crime punishable by death or life in
prison before the accused has a chance to be heard and before the court has
determined whether or not he is guilty. This usurps the role of "judge,
jury, and executioner," even though the police's only responsibility is to
look into the crime [18]and
help the courts determine guilt of the person charged.
There are 2 recent encounter cases
which immediately come to mind while discussing about this topic. They are, the
Hyderabad encounter case of 2019 and the Vikas Dubey case of 2020.
These are considered to be two of the most arbitrary encounter cases which
happened in the recent years.
On the midnight of November 26-27, 2019,
Priyanka Reddy - a 27-year-old veterinarian was gangraped and burnt by 4 people
in the Gachibowli area of Hyderabad. The police caught the suspects and the
investigation procedure was going on with the 4 suspects yet to be brought
before the trial courts. All four suspects were taken to the crime scene for
the reconstruction of the crime scene on December 6, 2019, at 3:30 am.
According to the narratives of the police officers, this where the 4 accused
allegedly tried to escape and harm the police, using the[19]
pistols snatched from them. It ended up in a crossfire, where all the four
accused were shot dead by the police officers. The self-contradictory,
"short and cryptic" police account of the events was questioned by
the three-member judicial committee which was set up after this incident, and
they came to the conclusion that “the accused were deliberately [20]fired
upon (by the police) with an aim to cause their death”. The commission
determined that all 10 police officers were guilty of tampering with evidence
and murder committed in support of a shared goal. The investigation also
revealed that three of the four deceased suspects were minors, which is a
concerning development. It is concerning as it is the wilful violation of
certain [21]juveniles'
statutory and constitutional rights as a result of such extrajudicial
executions. The final verdict of the Supreme Court in this case is still
pending.
The very next year, when the whole
world was grippling with covid 19, another encounter took place in the state of
Uttar Pradesh. Vikas Dubey who hailed from Kanpur district, was a
gangster who was wanted by the police on several counts. He is facing a long
array of criminal allegations, including the 2001 killing of a BJP politician
and a minister for the state of Uttar Pradesh inside a police station.[22] He was also suspected to have caused the
death of 8 policemen when they tried to arrest him on July 3rd 2020.
On 9th July 2020, a shopkeeper recognised Vikas Dubey and contacted
the police officers stationed on the temple complex in Ujjain, finally leading
to his arrest. On the very next day [10 July 2020], the car he was riding in
was involved in an accident. Vikas Dubey attempted to flee while snatching a
gun from a police officer who was changing a tyre. He was shot dead during the
encounter, along with his six other companions. The above narrative was the story/defence
given by the police when they were accused of murder by human rights activists.
While the police maintain this as the truth, it clearly seems like a scene cut
out [23]from
a movie. While it is definitely true that Vikas Dubey was a criminal who
deserved to be punished, this definitely was not the right way to do it. The
fact that these encounters are celebrated by the people especially in the Disha
case (Hyderabad encounter) shows the lack of trust that the society has
in the criminal justice system. This is primarily due to the extreme delay
caused by the courts in cases like these. For example, on December 2012, six
individuals in a moving bus gangraped and fatally injured Nirbhaya. All
four of the convicts received death sentences. But only eight years after
the horrifying tragedy, the accused were finally hanged following innumerable[24]
mercy applications and appeals. Many people, including Nirbhaya's parents, were
affected by this and gradually lost hope in the criminal justice system.
Speaking of legality of these
encounters, the Supreme Court, in the case of Public Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India[25], noted the validity of encounters by reasoning that the decision of
when, how, and where to intervene lay with the police force on the scene. This
judgement without doubt, gave the police, a green-light to continue their
method of approaching crime and invariably held Section 46(3)[26] as constitutionally valid. After almost 20 years, the Supreme Court, in
the case of Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath
Gupta,[27] held that false encounters are on par with "cold blooded
murders," and those who commit such killings should receive the death
penalty, placing them in the category of rarest of the rare.[28] It can be inferred from the 26th paragraph of the judgement
which states – “Trigger happy policemen who think they can kill people in
the name of ‘encounter’ and get away with it should know that the gallows await
them”[29]. Later in the case of People’s
Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra[30],
CJI RM Lodha and Justice Fali Nariman constituted a two-judge bench formulated
a 16-pointer guideline to be followed by the police in case of encounters.[31]
Fake encounters by the police, in the name of justice is unwelcome and
will never serve as a replacement for the punishment that will ultimately
result from a fair trial conducted in accordance with the law. The severity of
the accused's crimes cannot be used as a justification for such interactions,
and the police should always be held legally accountable for their actions.
Another potential solution would be to provide sensitization to the police
during their training days and also be taught to handle such situations without
resorting to murder. Not only this, the legislative should consider amending
the clauses given under Section 46 of the CrPC. Instead of generalising and
vaguely defining[32]
the terms, the amendment should clearly clarify the meanings of “reasonable
suspicion,” “reasonable judgement” of the police officer. The terms should be
more objective in nature, so as to bring the police to the book in case there
is violation. To sum it up in the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”
2.Are the
police violating their given powers of investigation? Is custodial torture seen
as a means of an end?
An investigation is the act or
process of investigating; a careful search or examination in order to discover
facts, etc[33]
according to Collins Dictionary. In CrPC, investigation has been defined in
Section 2(h).[34]
It states that, " investigation"
includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence
conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is
authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf”.[35] Investigation of cognizable cases is dealt with in Chapter
XII of CrPC. While Section 154 of CrPC deals with the filing of an FIR[36],
Section 156 of CrPC is all about the police officer’s power to investigate
cognizable cases. Section 156(1) states that, “Any officer in charge of a
police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any
cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within
the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the
provisions of Chapter XIII.” [37] This is
followed by Section 156 (2) states that, “No proceeding of a police officer
in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that
the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to
investigate.” On literal interpretation, these two clauses basically
empower the police to carry out investigation in serious or cognizable cases
without waiting for an order from the Magistrate. Section 156 (2) not only
eliminates the problem of jurisdiction, it also empowers the police to use all
methods of inquiry given in Chapter XIII (including Section 157). Section 157
is all about the procedure of investigation. Section 157(1) states that, “………may,
by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot,
to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to
take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender”.[38]
This is
where the concept of police custody comes in. While judicial custody
usually implies that the accused is detained in a jail and is in the care
of the Magistrate, police custody refers to the accused being kept in the
lock-up of a police station or in the custody of an investigating agency that
is looking into the crime in hand.[39] Police
custody is usually for a period of 15 days unlike judicial custody (which is
for 90 days). During this period, the police are empowered under Section 156
and 157, to carry out investigation as they see fit. This is exactly where the
concept of custodial torture comes into play.
Custodial
violence or torture usually refers to torture and violence committed while an
individual is in the custody of law enforcement personnel typically falls under
the definition of "custodial torture."[40]
According to the Supreme Court, torture in detention is a flagrant violation of
human dignity and degrading, and it substantially damages human personality. [41] The
Sathankulam custodial death case is one of the most recent example of custodial
torture and death. In 2020, during covid lockdown, the Tamil N?du Government
passed a rule specifying the time until which the shops can remain open. Jayraj
and Felix, a father-son duo owned a mobile accessories shop in Sathankulam town
in the Thootukudi district of Tamil Nadu. 19th June 2020 – the
fateful night, the aftermath which shook the country[42]. At
around 7:45pm, the police went to the shop and made the duo go to the police station
for inquiry. They were then brutally assaulted and tortured, and parts of their
bodies were mutilated. All this, merely because the pair kept their shop open
than the allotted hour, the police took such harsh measures, leading to their
deaths[43]. The reasons
offered by the police was the crowd gathered around the shop after the
specified time. But the eyewitness and video evidence recovered from the scene
give an entirely different account, illuminating the strategies they employed
to hide their wrongdoings. Although their store was open, no customers could be
seen outside. The two were brutally beaten up by the police at Sathankulam
Police Station after they were taken into custody for breaking laws and
disregarding public norms. Additionally, witnesses said they were visibly
bleeding heavily from their private areas.[44] On the
High Court's instructions, the CB-CID was initially in charge of the Jeyaraj
and Bennix custodial killings case. Ten or so police officers were booked and
taken into custody on murder charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code.[45] The CBI
then took up the investigation, which they are still doing. This shows the poor
state of law and order in the police department. The department which is
supposed to enforce the law, has itself violated it. This is despite the
Supreme Court’s stance, in the case of DK Basu v. State of West Bengal[46], where
it formulated a set of guidelines to be followed by the police when carrying
out the procedure of arrest and detention (includes police custody). The
concerned police officer will be convicted of contempt of court and will also
be responsible for departmental punishment[47] if
these requirements are not followed.
Conclusion
Police
brutality is without doubt, a very terrible act on its own and an utter
disrespect towards the nobility of the profession and the statutes which have
bestowed powers on it. The privileges and powers given to the police under CrPC
were given so, with an intention to ensure their safety and the belief that
these privileges would be used with caution. But now is the right time to bring
about reforms in the police system as well in the statutes. One potential
amendment which can be made in the CrPC is to Section 197. At present, Section
197 reads that, “when a public
servant is accused of committing an offence alleged to have been committed
while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no
court shall take cognisance of such an offence except with the previous
sanction of the Centre.” [48] In its
eighth report, the national police commission suggested removing this defence
of police misconduct committed in the course of official duties. Officers who
abuse their authority should be punished rather than protected.[49]
Another viable solution would be to conduct awareness programs and sensitize
the police officers regarding these incidents and their after affects. With
these solutions put into play, the possibility of police brutality and violence
in the future can be reduced to a great extent.
Bibliography
Statutes
Ø The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973
Ø The Indian
Penal Code, 1860
Ø The
Constitution of India, 1950
Cases
·
Public Union for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 612 OF 1992 (India).
·
Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath
Gupta, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1174-1178 OF 2011(India).
·
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of
Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635.
·
DK Basu v. State of West
Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 (India)
Online materials (including journal articles)
§ Shruti
Singh, Arrest of persons under CrPC 1973, December 12, 2019 available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/arrest-of-a-person/
§ Kaushal Jaisalmeria, Unfettered Powers of Police and Need for Reforms, August
11, 2020 available at https://www.legalbites.in/unfettered-powers-of-police/
§ Siddhanth Sharma, The Hyderabad
Encounter: Ruling out of the law? May 5, 2020 available at https://www.probono-india.in/blog-detail.php?id=93
§ Sushant Khalkho,Hyderabad
encounter killings: How Supreme Court panel punctures hole in police theory,
May 25, 2022 available at https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/hyderabad-encounter-killings-how-supreme-court-panel-punctures-hole-in-police-theory-10718051.html
§ India
Today, Who is Vikas Dubey? All you need to know about Kanpur gangster,
July 9, 2020 available at https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/who-is-vikas-dubey-all-you-need-to-know-about-kanpur-gangster-1698602-2020-07-09
§ Mohd Rameez Raza & Raja
Shekhar, The Vikas Dubey encounter case: Justice Served or justice denied? August
1, 2020 available at https://cclnusrl.wordpress.com/2020/08/01/the-vikas-dubey-encounter-case-justice-served-or-justice-denied-mohd-rameez-raza-raj-shekhar/
§ Prabhash K Dutta, Why
killing of the 4 rape accused by Hyderabad police is no cause for joy,
December 6, 2019 available at https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/why-killing-of-4-rape-accused-by-hyderabad-police-is-no-cause-for-joy-1625755-2019-12-06
§ Vidhi
Chouradai, Extra-judicial execution: In light of Vikas Dubey incident,
International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, vol 3 issue 4 (2020)
available at https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Extra-Judicial-Execution-In-Light-of-Vikas-Dubey-Incident.pdf
§ Collins
Dictionary, Investigation (last seen October 29, 2022) available at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/investigation
§ Vanya
Verma, Difference between Police custody and judicial custody under CrPC,
April 30, 2020 available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/differene-police-custody-judicial-custody-crpc/#Introduction
§ Legal
Service India, Custodial torture and reforms in police administration,
(last seen October 29, 2022) available at https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3120-custodial-torture-and-reforms-in-police-administration.html#:~:text=Custodial%20torture%20a%20form%20of,very%20large%20extent%20human%20personality.
§ Abhinav
Ashok, The abuse of police power and police brutality, July 18, 2020
available at https://www.legalbites.in/abuse-of-police-power-police-brutality
§ The News
Minute, Sathankulam Custodial deaths: Accused inspector Sridhar claims
threat to life, May 5, 2022 available at https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/sathankulam-custodial-deaths-accused-inspector-sridhar-claims-threat-life-163615
§ Randeep
Dahiya, The use and misuse of power of police to arrest – an in-depth study
in the light of Supreme Court decisions, (last seen October 29. 2022)
available at https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1355-the-use-and-misuse-of-power-of-police-to-arrest-an-in-depth-study-in-the-light-of-supreme-court-decisions-and-law-commission-reports.html
§ Kaushal Jaisalmeria, Unfettered Powers of Police and Need for Reforms,
August 11, 2020 available at https://www.legalbites.in/unfettered-powers-of-police/
[1] Article
21, The Constitution of India, 1950
[2]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[3]
Shruti Singh, Arrest of persons under CrPC 1973, December 12, 2019 available at
https://blog.ipleaders.in/arrest-of-a-person/
[4]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
[5] supra
note 1, ch 5
[6] supra
note 1, § 41(2)
[7] supra
note 1, § 42
[8]
Shruti Singh, Arrest of persons under CrPC 1973, December 12, 2019 available at
https://blog.ipleaders.in/arrest-of-a-person/
[9] supra
note 1, § 41(1)
[10]
Shruti Singh, Arrest of persons under CrPC 1973, December 12, 2019 available at
https://blog.ipleaders.in/arrest-of-a-person/
[11] supra
note 1, § 46(1)(b)(i)
[12] supra
note 1, § 46(1)(b)(ii)
[13]Kaushal
Jaisalmeria, Unfettered
Powers of Police and Need for Reforms,
August 11, 2020 available at https://www.legalbites.in/unfettered-powers-of-police/
[14] supra
note 1, § 46(1)
[15] supra
note 1, § 46(2)
[16] supra
note 1, § 46(3)
[17]
Siddhanth Sharma, The Hyderabad Encounter: Ruling out of the law? May 5,
2020 available at https://www.probono-india.in/blog-detail.php?id=93
[18]
Siddhanth Sharma, The Hyderabad Encounter: Ruling out of the law? May 5,
2020 available at https://www.probono-india.in/blog-detail.php?id=93
[19]
Siddhanth Sharma, The Hyderabad Encounter: Ruling out of the law? May 5,
2020 available at https://www.probono-india.in/blog-detail.php?id=93
[20] Sushant
Khalkho,Hyderabad encounter killings: How Supreme Court panel punctures hole
in police theory, May 25, 2022 available at https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/hyderabad-encounter-killings-how-supreme-court-panel-punctures-hole-in-police-theory-10718051.html
[21] Sushant
Khalkho,Hyderabad encounter killings: How Supreme Court panel punctures hole
in police theory, May 25, 2022 available at https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/hyderabad-encounter-killings-how-supreme-court-panel-punctures-hole-in-police-theory-10718051.html
[22]
India Today, Who is Vikas Dubey? All you need to know about Kanpur gangster,
July 9, 2020 available at https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/who-is-vikas-dubey-all-you-need-to-know-about-kanpur-gangster-1698602-2020-07-09
[23]
Mohd Rameez Raza & Raja Shekhar, The Vikas Dubey encounter case: Justice
Served or justice denied? August 1, 2020 available at https://cclnusrl.wordpress.com/2020/08/01/the-vikas-dubey-encounter-case-justice-served-or-justice-denied-mohd-rameez-raza-raj-shekhar/
[24]
Prabhash K Dutta, Why killing of the 4 rape accused by Hyderabad police is
no cause for joy, December 6, 2019 available at https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/why-killing-of-4-rape-accused-by-hyderabad-police-is-no-cause-for-joy-1625755-2019-12-06
[25] Public Union for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 612 OF 1992 (India).
[26] supra
note 1, § 46(3)
[27] Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 1174-1178 OF 2011(India).
[28]
Mohd Rameez Raza & Raja Shekhar, The Vikas Dubey encounter case: Justice
Served or justice denied? August 1, 2020 available at https://cclnusrl.wordpress.com/2020/08/01/the-vikas-dubey-encounter-case-justice-served-or-justice-denied-mohd-rameez-raza-raj-shekhar/
[29] Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 1174-1178 OF 2011(India) ¶26
[30] People’s
Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635.
[31]
Vidhi Chouradai, Extra-judicial execution: In light of Vikas Dubey incident,
International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, vol 3 issue 4 (2020)
available at https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Extra-Judicial-Execution-In-Light-of-Vikas-Dubey-Incident.pdf
[32]
Vidhi Chouradai, Extra-judicial execution: In light of Vikas Dubey incident,
International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, vol 3 issue 4 (2020)
available at https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Extra-Judicial-Execution-In-Light-of-Vikas-Dubey-Incident.pdf
[33]
Collins Dictionary, Investigation (last seen October 29, 2022) available at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/investigation
[34] supra
note 1, § 2{h}
[35] supra
note 1, § 2{h}
[36] supra
note 1, § 154
[37] supra
note 1, § 156 (1)
[38] supra
note 1, § 157(1)
[39]
Vanya Verma, Difference between Police custody and judicial custody under
CrPC, April 30, 2020 available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/differene-police-custody-judicial-custody-crpc/#Introduction
[40]
Legal Service India, Custodial torture and reforms in police administration,
(last seen October 29, 2022) available at https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3120-custodial-torture-and-reforms-in-police-administration.html#:~:text=Custodial%20torture%20a%20form%20of,very%20large%20extent%20human%20personality.
[41]
Legal Service India, Custodial torture and reforms in police administration,
(last seen October 29, 2022) available at https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3120-custodial-torture-and-reforms-in-police-administration.html#:~:text=Custodial%20torture%20a%20form%20of,very%20large%20extent%20human%20personality.
[42]
Abhinav Ashok, The abuse of police power and police brutality, July 18,
2020 available at https://www.legalbites.in/abuse-of-police-power-police-brutality
[43]
Abhinav Ashok, The abuse of police power and police brutality, July 18,
2020 available at https://www.legalbites.in/abuse-of-police-power-police-brutality
[44]
Abhinav Ashok, The abuse of police power and police brutality, July 18,
2020 available at https://www.legalbites.in/abuse-of-police-power-police-brutality
[45]
The News Minute, Sathankulam Custodial deaths: Accused inspector Sridhar
claims threat to life, May 5, 2022 available at https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/sathankulam-custodial-deaths-accused-inspector-sridhar-claims-threat-life-163615
[46] DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1
SCC 416 (India)
[47]
Randeep Dahiya, The use and misuse of power of police to arrest – an
in-depth study in the light of Supreme Court decisions, (last seen October
29. 2022) available at https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1355-the-use-and-misuse-of-power-of-police-to-arrest-an-in-depth-study-in-the-light-of-supreme-court-decisions-and-law-commission-reports.html
[48] supra
note 1, § 197