Police entitled to use necessary force to arrest, subdue fleeing accused: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that police officers are well within their right to use necessary force while discharging their duty in order to arrest an accused [Gulam Rasul v State of Kerala & Anr.]..Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas further observed that if any injury is caused to a fleeing accused who is forcefully apprehended, it does not imply that the police officer who used force, was not acting in discharge of his duty."In discharge of the said duty, they are entitled to use such force as is necessary to arrest an accused. Further in the attempt to subdue a fleeing accused, force can be used, and if in that process any injury is caused, it cannot be said that the police officer was not acting in discharge of his duty," the Court held in its order..The order was passed on a plea moved by a man who had filed a complaint against a Circle Inspector of Police for allegedly brutally attacking him with a bamboo stick and dragging him by his hair, and in doing so committing offences under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint) , 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.However, a Magistrate court refused to take cognisance of the same for the reason that the sanction for prosecuting the accused police officer had not been obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).The petitioner approached the Court, through advocate Lal K Joseph, challenging the order of the Magistrate arguing that a sanction under Section 197 ought not to have been insisted upon since the police officer in question was not discharging his duty when he tortured him..This argument was countered by advocate V Vinay, appearing for the respondent police officer as well as Public Prosecutor Noushad KA, who submitted that the Magistrate's order was well considered and did not warrant any interference..The Court noted that the petitioner and some other individuals were arrayed as accused in a first information report (FIR) for trespassing into the property of the petitioner's employer, who had instituted a suit against him.Moreover, the Magistrate had found that the petitioner was arrested by the police in the course of its investigation, pursuant to the registration of the crime.From the wound certificate issued by the hospital where the petitioner was treated, the Court saw that he had not sustained any serious injury The Court referred to the decision of a single-judge of the Kerala High in Prakash v State of Kerala in which it was observed that three questions are to be answered while considering the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC which are as follows:What was the particular official duty which was being discharged or purported to be discharged by the public servant, at the time of alleged commission of offence?What act or acts are to be done by the public servant to perform and complete such particular official duty?Is there any reasonable connection or relationship between the offending act/ acts allegedly committed by the public servant and, the act or acts which is/ are to be done to perform and complete such particular duty?.In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner was apprehended the police 7 days after registration of an FIR against him, and as part of discharge of their official duty..Therefore, the Court declined to interfere with the order of the Magistrate and dismissed the plea..[Read Order]