35 years on, FIR against 12 retired cops for ‘fake encounter’ in Kanpur

The case has reopened three and a half decades after a 1991 police operation in Kanpur. A CB-CID inquiry concluded that the encounter was fabricated and that evidence against 12 arrested men was false. This matters because the allegations involve police authority being used to create a criminal case rather than document a genuine incident.

The inquiry named 18 policemen, including then station house officer Vidyasagar Tripathi and investigating officer Ramesh Chandra Bhatole. Six have died. The remaining 12 retired policemen now face an FIR at Maharajpur police station, based on a complaint by CB-CID inspector Sushil Kumar.

They were booked under IPC sections concerning fabricated evidence, false charges, wrongful confinement and causing hurt. DCP Satyajit Gupta confirmed the FIR. The CB-CID will continue investigating, so the allegations remain subject to the legal process.

A fake encounter generally means police present an arrest or killing as an armed confrontation when the reported clash did not happen as described. A genuine armed confrontation involves an actual encounter with people who pose an armed threat. The difference matters because a fabricated account can hide unlawful detention, false evidence and wrongful criminal charges.

Here, police claimed that men trying to rob a DCM truck blocked a road with tree branches and confronted a police team. The inquiry instead found that the 12 men had been picked up from their homes while asleep. It also found that licensed firearms belonging to family members were falsely shown as weapons recovered from the men.

The article does not provide a general legal definition of “fake encounter.” It reports the CB-CID’s findings in this case. The FIR and continuing investigation are now meant to examine those allegations.

The numbers show how the case has changed over 35 years. The CB-CID inquiry identified 18 policemen as connected with the alleged fabricated encounter and false evidence. Six of those named have since died, leaving 12 retired policemen facing the FIR.

The named officers included Vidyasagar Tripathi, the station house officer at the time, and Ramesh Chandra Bhatole, the investigating officer. The FIR was registered at Maharajpur police station on a complaint by CB-CID inspector Sushil Kumar. It covers alleged fabrication of evidence, false charges, wrongful confinement and causing hurt.

The distinction between the inquiry and FIR is important. Eighteen people were named in the inquiry, but only 12 are currently facing the FIR because six have died. The CB-CID is continuing its investigation, according to DCP Satyajit Gupta.

The strongest evidence described in the article came from the CB-CID inquiry. It found that the 12 men had been picked up from their homes while they were asleep. That finding directly conflicted with the police account that they were confronted while attempting to rob a truck at Narval turn.

The inquiry also found that licensed firearms belonging to the men’s family members were falsely shown as weapons recovered from the arrested men. Truck driver Umashankar and cleaner Brijendra Singh told investigators that police forcibly boarded their vehicle at Ramadevi Chauraha. They said they were later taken to the police station and made to sign blank papers.

Together, these findings suggested a constructed case. The alleged home pickups challenged the arrest story, while the firearms finding challenged the recovery evidence. The inquiry concluded that the encounter was fabricated and that evidence against the 12 men was false.

An FIR formally records allegations and allows investigators to examine whether offences were committed. Here, the alleged offences include fabricating evidence, filing false charges, wrongful confinement and causing hurt. The filing does not itself establish guilt, but it moves the allegations into a criminal investigation.

The complaint was submitted by CB-CID inspector Sushil Kumar at Maharajpur police station. DCP Satyajit Gupta confirmed the FIR and said the CB-CID would continue investigating. Investigators can therefore examine records, witness accounts and the alleged weapon recoveries described in the inquiry.

If the investigation finds sufficient evidence, the accused may face prosecution and a court process. The article does not state whether arrests, chargesheets or convictions have followed this FIR. Its immediate consequence is that the allegations against the 12 retired policemen are formally under investigation.

The police account transformed the 12 men from alleged suspects at a roadside incident into accused persons in several serious cases. Police claimed that on August 23, 1991, a team confronted men trying to rob a DCM truck after they blocked Narval turn with tree branches. The men were arrested and jailed after alleged recoveries of weapons and explosives.

Police later filed a chargesheet. It invoked IPC provisions concerning preparation for and assembly to commit dacoity and attempted murder. It also included sections of the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act. Those charges depended on the claimed encounter, arrests and recoveries.

The CB-CID inquiry later found that the men had been picked up from their homes while asleep. It also found that family members’ licensed firearms were falsely shown as recovered weapons. Thus, the police narrative supplied the basis for imprisonment and multiple serious charges, which are now being reexamined.

Legal safeguards are meant to prevent police power from becoming arbitrary. In general, people should be told why they are being arrested, brought promptly before a magistrate, allowed access to legal assistance and protected from coercion. Arrest and detention records should be accurate. Evidence should be collected lawfully, and statements or signatures should not be forced.

The case illustrates the risks these protections address. The inquiry found that the 12 men were picked up from their homes while asleep. Truck driver Umashankar and cleaner Brijendra Singh said they were taken to a police station and made to sign blank papers. Licensed firearms belonging to relatives were allegedly presented as recovered weapons.

The article does not detail the applicable safeguards or court remedies. It reports an FIR for fabricated evidence, false charges, wrongful confinement and causing hurt. The continuing CB-CID investigation will determine what evidence supports those allegations and what legal proceedings follow.