The New Nation - Internet Edition

Razzak Raza

The role of the police in a democratic society is very complex. Police work is highly visible. It affects every people of every stratum. Every individual is subject to police observation-either he is an ordinary farmer or a powerful VIP. So, every step of a police-decision is severely scrutinized by the society.

A police officer with full uniform, if scrutinized carefully, speaks much of his authority to use force to materialize his lawful ends lawfully. The fire-arms in his holster, tells us that it could be shot, the baton/lathi in his hand depicts that some one is subject to be lathi-charged; the tear-shell, riot-van, and water cannon and all other anti-riot equipments symbolically stand for the authority of using force .

But the power to use force by the police is a controversial authority. Where ever and whenever police use force, they are criticized. No use of deadly force is welcomed by the public. The media is highly critical. No situation of using force is sufficiently ripened for the media. This is a tragic dilemma for every police organization that even the cost of a police officer's life is hardly enough to counter the public criticism.

The police by the very nature of their function are an anomaly in a free society. One hand, we expect them to exercise coercive force: to restrain people when they are out of control, to arrest them when they break the law, and in some extreme cases to use deadly force. At the same time, however, we expect the police to protect the individual freedoms that are the essential part of a democratic society. The tension between freedom and constraint is one of the central problems of the police [1]

The authority of using force lies in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr P.C) and in the PRB. The right of private defense describe in the Penal Code (PC) also provides with the principles of using force of various degrees by the police officers.

Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense. [2] This generic section is applicable to every situation where the usage of deadly force arises. The elaboration of the right of private defense is stated as "every person has a right (subject to the restrictions contained in section 99), to defend first,- his body , and the body of any other person , against any offence affecting the human body;

secondly- The property, whether moveable or immoveable , of himself or of any other persons against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass , or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. The right of private defense extended to causing the death of the offender in some cases [3] and to the grievous hurt in some other cases [4].

But this right is not unfettered .There is the limitation such as if there is sufficient time for recourse to public authorities, the right will not be available. More harm than that is necessary should not be caused; there must be a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt or hurt to the person or damage to the property concerned. These are the broad-band principles of using force against the citizens a police officer to bear in mind.

There are some regularly special cases, the police officers have to encounter. Police need to use force to execute warrants of various descriptions or to arrest the offenders. The Cr.PC allows the police officer concern to use force for the execution of arrest.-

If such person (whom to arrest) forcibly resists the endeavor to arrest him or attempt to evade the arrest, such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest. [5] The expression "all means necessary' does not authorize the police officer to do any thing he whishes. There are also limitations. However, police can chase an offender up to the house of an individual [6]. They can enter the house by breaking its doors or windows [7]. But noting gives the police officer a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life [8]. The offender, once arrested, shall not be subjected to more restraint that is necessary to prevent his escape [9].

Dispersal of an unlawful assembly is a much criticized police action. Any Magistrate or Officer-in-Charge of a police station may command any unlawful assembly (an unlawful assembly within the meaning of section 141 of the Penal Code) or any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace to disperse. [10]

If upon being so commanded any such assembly does not disperse, or if without being so commanded, it conducts itself in such a manner as to show a determination not to disperse, any Magistrate or Officer-in-Charge of a police station may proceed to disperse such assembly by force. [11]

The power of a police officer to use force against a citizen of a democratic country demands highly judicious discretion. In this crucial respect, the police are different from other professionals-teachers, social workers, doctors. Force includes the power to take some ones life, the use physical force and the power to deprive people of their liberty though arrest. The official duty of a teacher might enrage some people. But the use of force by a police officer as a tool of official duty results in the loss of some lives. [12]

The use of deadly force, that is, the use of fire arms by the police is strictly controlled by a set of mandatory rules stated in the Police Regulations, Bengal (PRB). The Police officer at the charge of an armed party cannot order firing at his sweet will. An order to fire upon a crowd should be regarded as the extreme measure to which recourse should be had only in the last resort when it is absolutely necessary for the defense of life or property and it is impossible to disperse the mob by any other means. [13] Before an order is given to fire upon a crowd the Magistrate or, if no Magistrate is present, the police officer in command shall give full and sufficient warning to the rioters that they will be fired upon if they do not disperse immediately. [14] Two consecutive warnings are needed. However, only one warning will suffice if the situation turns extremely grave. [15] The Police officer ordering fire stands in the line of his carrier as his decision to order firing will be scrutinized immediately by the press, by the local people and by the victims or the relatives of the deceased. The firing saga will be inquired by the executive authority.

Whenever the police have fired arms, a full executive enquiry to ascertain weather the firing was justified and weather these regulations (of PRB) were obeyed, shall be held as soon as it can possibly be arranged. [16] It is not uncommon that police officers ordering fires lose their job and are prosecuted to send behind bars. The decision that a police officer disburses standing between the line of the belligerent mob and his riot-geared armed forces is being judged by the cool-headed executives for months. His decision must be right without fail, otherwise ruin will seize him. He will turn a villain over the day.

General people have a much talked-about wrong belief that ordering firing is the sole authority of a magistrate. The police officer has no power to open fire without a magistrate's order. But the laws and rules of the country tells otherwise. A police officer is empowered to open fire without the order of a Magistrate. An Officer-in-Charge of a police station or a police officer superior in rank or even a head constable in charge of an armed party, sometimes, can decide independently to order the use of fire arms.

The maintenance of law and order is primarily a police-job. The Magistrate might be present with the police to guide the police and caused the police to arrest persons when their offence is purely non-cognizable. To suppress a riot or an unlawful assembly the presence of a Magistrate is not obligatory.

The police officer who leads or sends out armed constables (to suppress a riot), should, whenever possible, inform the nearest magistrate and give him an opportunity of accompanying the party. The departure or dispatch of an armed force must, however, and on no account be held up to the possible deterioration of the situation, solely with a view to obtaining the accompanying presence of a magistrate. [17]

The authority to use force by the police officer is a highly sensitive empowerment. It is inherent to the police officer that he is a potential misuser of his power. Power tends to corrupt. So, it is not unlikely that police authority to use deadly force will be misused or fairly used.

The lowest rank and file officer of the police force can use force and use the fire arms he carries with him. But he is not unbound. The aftermath of a probable firing is more painful than the pelting stones from the unruly mob. Sometimes, the police officers find their arms a heavy burden on them.

A police officer is accountable to his organization, to the Government (that is to the political boss), to the courts and, above all, to the community. The authority to take lives of the citizens is an earthly supreme discretion. It is also a noble authority. But it may turn devil if the police officer using it does not apply his judicious discretion. To kill a human being to save the other lives is a benevolent ideal. The police must hold up the ideal of saving the masses from injustice and animosities.