One of the petitioners informed the Supreme Court that the Uttar Pradesh government had not provided complete information regarding 183 encounter killings and claimed that this response cast doubt on the events in question. The petitioner’s attorney, Vishal Tiwari, claimed in a rejoinder affidavit that the Uttar Pradesh government withheld a Status Report and a response to the 183 encounter killings on purpose. “Many of these encounters could have been fake, and the Guidelines established by this Supreme Court have not been properly followed. By withholding certain information about these incidents, the Respondent acted in a way that did not inspire confidence and cast doubt on the State’s ability to operate impartially and fairly.
He also raised questions on the police story of self-defence and mentioned that the Apex Court in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families
Association (EEVFAM) and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) matter has succinctly stated that the right of self-defence or private defence falls in one basket and use of excessive force or retaliatory force falls in another basket.
“Therefore, while a victim of aggression has a right of private defence or self-defence (recognized by Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code) if that victim exceeds the right of private defence or self-defence by using excessive force or retaliatory measures, he then becomes an aggressor and commits a punishable offence,” Advocate Vishal Tiwari said.
