Two days after Akshay Shinde, a sex assault accused, was fatally shot while in police custody, the Bombay High Court has raised serious questions about the circumstances surrounding the 24-year-old’s death. The court was hearing a petition filed by Shinde’s father, who alleged that his son was killed in a staged encounter and demanded an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Shinde, who was accused of sexually assaulting two girls at a school in Badlapur where he worked as a sweeper, was being transferred from Taloja Jail to Badlapur on Monday when the incident occurred. According to police, Shinde allegedly snatched a policeman’s pistol and opened fire, injuring an assistant inspector. In response, police claimed they fired back, killing Shinde.
During the hearing before a bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan, Shinde’s father’s counsel questioned the police’s account. The counsel pointed out that Shinde had met his parents the day before the incident and was not in a state of mind to carry out such actions. “In the present case, the police are deciding who is convicted. The rule of law must prevail. This sets a dangerous precedent and encourages police misconduct,” the counsel argued, urging the court to order a judicial probe into the incident.
The court pressed the state’s counsel on the cause of Shinde’s death, to which the government lawyer responded, “bullet wound on the left thigh.” The public prosecutor explained that Shinde had allegedly unlocked the pistol by pulling its upper portion, enabling him to fire. “He pulled the slider, it popped, and he fired,” the prosecutor said.
However, the court expressed doubt about this explanation. “It requires significant strength for the slider to pop. A layman cannot easily fire a pistol without training; a revolver is different,” the bench observed.
The court also questioned the sequence of events, noting that Shinde reportedly fired three bullets, yet only one struck the officer. “What about the other two?” the court asked.
Further, the bench criticised the police for not neutralising the situation with less lethal force. “The accused should have been shot below the knee,” the court observed.
The state government responded that the officer involved “did not have time to think.” The court remained sceptical, asking, “How can we believe the police were unable to overpower the accused?”
First Published: Sep 25 2024 | 4:08 PM IST
