The Kerala High Court has directed the crime branch to investigate the circumstances that led to the death of two suspected Maoists in at Manjikandi in the Attappadi forest area last month. The court on Tuesday also sought a probe into the role of the Kerala Police’s Thunderbolts commandos, who were engaged in the operation.
The probe was ordered after a petition was filed by relatives of the two suspected Maoists who were killed, Manivasakam and Kannan alias Karthick, seeking an inquiry against police officials.
Justice R Narayana Pisharadi in his order pointed out that various guidelines on the investigation of police encounters issued by the Supreme Court were violated by the police, and that invoking Section 49 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act could affect the impartiality of the probe. The section considers an action taken in the course of any operation directed towards combating terrorism by any serving or retired member of the armed forces or para-military forces in good faith.
The counsel for the petitioners, KS Madhusoodanan, told the court that the FIRs registered at Agali police station had included provisions of the UAPA to shield the police team that carried out the investigation from coming under scrutiny.
The SC in its guidelines on encounter killings demands an independent investigation conducted by a superior officer to the rank of the officer, who headed the police team involved in the encounter. The relatives of the alleged Maoists in their petition had pointed out that the SC guidelines had been violated and that the inclusion of the UAPA provisions absolves the police officers.
The court in its order stated that the Section 49 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, was not a penal provision and that the police have not explained why this provision was added in the FIRs. The court also pointed out that there was a delay in the surrender of weapons used by the commando team during the encounter for forensic and ballistic analysis, another requirement under the SC guidelines.
The court pointed out that while the encounter took place on October 28 and 29, only one police firearm was surrendered on November 5. The judge said that he considered this ‘an undue delay’ on the part of the police officers who had participated in the encounter. Based on this, the judge directed the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch to supervise the investigation, seize the firearms and send them for forensic and ballistic analysis.
The court, however, did not consider the argument made by the petitioners that the FIRs filed against the deceased were illegal. The court has also allowed the cremation of the deceased as the postmortem reports contained enough details on the bullet injuries. The court observed that the report did not explain the circumstances or the manner in which the deaths occurred.