The Karnataka High Court on April 15 directed the State government to conduct a post-mortem examination on the body of Ritesh Kumar, a migrant labourer from Bihar, who was allegedly killed during a police encounter in Hubballi on April 13.
Ritesh Kumar was accused of being involved in the murder of a 5-year-old girl in Hubballi. According to the police, the encounter took place when the accused tried to escape police custody. He was shot by the police during the attempted escape.
A division bench consisting of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind issued the directions while hearing a petition filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Karnataka. The Court highlighted that the State must strictly follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines laid down in the landmark judgment of PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014), which deals with deaths resulting from police actions.
The Court specifically ordered that:
“The body of the accused shall be subjected to post-mortem by a team of two doctors at the local hospital as per direction of the Supreme Court. Videography be undertaken for the entire duration of the postmortem and authorities shall preserve samples of the parts of the body collected during the post-mortem, to be made available for investigation if required.”
This order was passed as the Court issued notice to the respondent authorities, returnable on April 24.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Rules: Only RERA Tribunal Members Can Decide Complaint Maintainability, Not Registry
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing PUCL, informed the Court about the background of the case, including the crime the deceased was accused of and the circumstances of the police encounter. Stressing that the petition was not intended to make accusations at this stage, he said,
At the moment we are not entering into adversarial acquisitions against the state. I am only pointing to the mandatory guidelines to be followed.
In response, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, appearing for the State of Karnataka, clarified the State’s position. He informed the Court that an FIR had already been registered and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) was handling the case. He stated:
We have learnt that cremation of the deceased is likely to take place today. At this stage I am only requesting the body of the deceased be preserved.
“We have already registered an FIR, CID is investigating the case. There is no question of cremation. In such incidents there is no cremation but a burial and we are strictly following the SC order.”
The Advocate General assured the Court that the body would only be handed over to the family after proper identification and, even then, only burial would be permitted, not cremation. He explained this was to ensure that the body could be exhumed later if required for further investigation.
The Court, after hearing this submission, observed:
“Having noted this submission, it is to be observed that apprehension of the petitioner that the body would be cremated is not well placed.”
The matter will now be heard again on April 24.
Case Title:
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Karnataka
