Trigger-Happy Policemen Must Know the Gallows Await Them: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹15 Lakh Compensation for Custodial Killing of 22-Year-Old

“Rule of Law Must Prevail Even When the Deceased Is a Proclaimed Offender”—High Court Slams Police for Extra-Judicial Killing and FIR Manipulation. Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a searing indictment of police excesses and extra-judicial killings. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that the custodial death of a 22-year-old man, Arvinder Pal Singh @ Lovely, due to a point-blank gunshot fired by a police officer, was a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and ordered the State to pay ₹15,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner, the victim’s mother.

Condemning the act as a “cold-blooded murder by those meant to uphold the law,” the Court observed: “Allowing the act of respondent No.5 to go unchecked would effectively mean validating a death sentence passed not in line with due process of law, but by the law enforcement agency donning the role of judge, jury, and executioner.”

The petitioner Daljit Kaur approached the Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking a fair investigation into the death of her son, who was shot dead on May 23, 2013, by Head Constable Prem Singh and Head Constable Sandeep Singh at a barber shop in Amritsar. It was alleged that without provocation, Arvinder Pal Singh was shot in the chest at point-blank range.

Initially, in an apparent attempt to shield the erring police officers, an FIR was registered against the deceased (FIR No. 87/2013) under Sections 307, 353, 332 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, alleging that he had attacked the police. This FIR was shown to have been filed after his death—an assertion contradicted by the Post-Mortem Report, which indicated death minutes after the gunshot injury.

Only after intervention by the High Court in a prior petition, CRM-M-24724-2013, was an FIR (No. 69/2015) registered against the police officials, but only under Section 304 IPC, not under Section 302 IPC, which the Court found unacceptable.

Police Excess and FIR Dilution

Justice Brar was scathing in his remarks against the manipulation of records, dilution of charges, and shielding of culpable officers. Referring to the blackening around the entry wound and absence of injuries to non-vital parts, the Court said:

“It is rather curious as to why, if it was at all required, did respondent No.5 not aim for the legs… rather, he has directly been shot at the chest.”

The narrative of self-defence was flatly rejected, especially since the gunshot injury was found to be from point-blank range and fatal. The Court noted:

“The injury on the deceased had a black ring around it, which clearly indicates that the bullet was shot from a very small, perhaps point-blank distance… The narrative put forth by respondents No.5 and 6 seems rather untenable.”

Rejecting the justification of the deceased’s criminal background, the Court reaffirmed:

“Even a proclaimed offender has the right to life… The same does not give a right to the police officials to indulge in excesses.”

Right to Life and the Constitution’s Mandate

Quoting extensively from landmark Supreme Court judgments in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra, EEVFAM v. Union of India, and Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, the High Court emphasized the sanctity of Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that the rule of law must never bend to retaliatory violence by law enforcement.

“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,” the Court quoted from Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta.

On Self-Defence and Police Justification

Referring to Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, the judgment reiterated: “A right of private defence is only a right to defend oneself and not to retaliate. It is not a right to take revenge.”

The police claim that the bullet struck the arm and ricocheted into the chest was dismissed as implausible. The Court noted that even assuming the deceased was holding a knife, the officers, being armed and trained, were expected to subdue rather than shoot to kill.

Guidelines on Investigating Police KillingsJustice Brar invoked the Supreme Court’s binding directions in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra: “An FIR must be registered in all police encounter deaths and an independent investigation conducted. A magisterial inquiry under Section 176 CrPC is mandatory.”

Noting that these procedures were entirely ignored, the Court expressed concern that no proper inquiry, no arrest, and no accountability had occurred in the 12 years since the killing.

Finding that the petitioner’s relentless pursuit of justice had exposed the State’s mala fide conduct and attempt to sabotage legal processes, the High Court allowed the petition and held:

“This Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of compensation, as the death of the petitioner’s son was caused due to excesses on part of the State law enforcement agency.”

Accordingly, the Court directed:

• State of Punjab to pay ₹15,00,000 to the petitioner within eight weeks.

• Jurisdictional Magistrate to assess the pending cancellation report in light of relevant precedents.

• Petitioner was given liberty to pursue alternate remedies as the FIR stands registered under the Court’s earlier directions.

This judgment is a powerful affirmation of judicial oversight over State violence and a reminder that the right to life cannot be extinguished by the barrel of a police gun. The Court unequivocally stated that extra-judicial executions, regardless of the victim’s past, are unconstitutional, unjustifiable, and must attract strict liability.

“The ‘encounter’ philosophy is a criminal philosophy… Society and the courts obviously cannot and do not accept such a death caused by the State since it is destructive of the rule of law and plainly unconstitutional.”

Date of Decision: May 20, 2025