Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has upheld a magisterial inquiry that gave a clean chit to Mahisagar police in connection with the encounter death of Sajid Shaikh alias Rabdi in Lunawada town in 2018. In this case, Rabdi, who faced 48 FIRs, allegedly hid in a house in Lunawada on Aug 18, 2018, holding women and children hostage by wielding a sword. Police tried to persuade him to throw the sword, but he did not, and allegedly tried to attack a policeman present there. This led PSI P R Karen to fire one round in the air, and the second bullet he fired went through Rabdi’s neck, killing him.This police encounter resulted in a mandatory magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the CrPC, and the magistrate concluded that the PSI fired to protect not only the hostages, but also police personnel. This was not acceptable to Rabdi’s family, and they demanded registration of an FIR and an independent investigation by an agency other than Mahisagar police.They filed a petition in the high court, terming the magisterial inquiry partial, stating that the magistrate recorded statements only of the police officials who were present on the spot, and they demanded an FIR in accordance with the guidelines of the Supreme Court.After the hearing, Justice M R Mengdey upheld the inquiry report, stating that the magistrate carried out a “detained inquiry”, and said further, “Upon perusal of the report of the learned magistrate, this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner gets falsified since the learned Magistrate not merely recorded the statements of the police officials, but also recorded the statements of the persons who were kept as hostages by the deceased.“The high court upheld the magisterial inquiry report’s conclusion that the PSI opened fire in self-defence and to save captive women and children. On the SC guidelines, the HC said, “Those guidelines are pertaining to inquiry into the death occurred due to police encounter and as observed hereinabove, the present not being the case of police encounter, the adherence to those guidelines is not necessary. Learned magistrate appears to have left no stone unturned for eliciting the truth, and therefore, no further inquiry is required to be carried out at the hands of Police as contended on behalf of the petitioner.”
