The killing of Rahul Raj, 25, in a police encounter on Monday has triggered a debate: Did the cops really need to kill Raj? Was there no way they could have caught him alive?
Encounters, according to Bombay Police Manual, is an exercise of right of private defence of body. However, it clearly mentions that firearms should be used as a last resort and that too, after due warning.
Police claimed that they followed the rule book during Monday’s encounter. They did ask Rahul to drop his gun and surrender. “We warned him not to open fire, as it would leave us with no other option but to retaliate. But he paid no heed to us. We had to shoot at him to immobilise him,” said assistant commissioner of police Mohammed Javed, who headed the police team.
Justifying the police action, additional commissioner Sadanand Date said that they were concerned about the safety of other passengers in the bus. “We fired in self defence. Our work was professional,” said Date.
Prima facie, it seemed that Rahul suffered four bullet injuries — two each on head and chest. Post mortem reports are awaited.
Human rights activists, however, said that it was difficult to believe that a police team comprising at least 20 officers found it tough to overpower a solitary young man.
“Police should resort to firing only as the last option. If such becomes inevitable, they should fire below the waist,” said Sushan Kunjuraman, high court advocate and a human rights activist. “Prima facie, it seems to be a cold-blooded murder, an inhuman act.”
