Inquiry commission led by Justice (Retd) BS Chauhan has given a clean chit to Uttar Pradesh Police in the encounter case of gangster Vikas Dubey and his aides. The commission did not find any evidence of wrongdoing. The Police force was accused of gunning down the gangster as revenge for eight policemen’s death in July 2020.
According to reports, the commission concluded the investigation in eight months and noted that there was no evidence against the UP police. During the investigation, the commission did not find any eyewitness accounts that could negate the version of events narrated by the Police that led to Dubey’s encounter.
Vikas Dubey encounter
In July 2020, Vikas Dubey and his men ambushed a police team in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh and killed eight police personnel. The Police team had gone to raid history-sheeter Dubey’s house. When the team reached close to his house at Bikaru Village, Dubey’s men started firing. Dubey escaped from the spot. Several Police teams were formed to catch Dubey and his associates. A week later, Dubey was arrested in Madhya Pradesh. While UP Police was bringing him back, the car they were travelling in overturned on the highway.
As per Police’s report, Dubey tried to escape from the spot and snatched a gun from injured police personnel. An encounter broke out on the road in which he was killed. Soon after reports of his death emerged in the media, the opposition parties launched an attack on the UP government, stating it was revenge killed. Congress raised several questions over the case and had asked how only one car in convoy overturned.
On July 22, the Supreme Court of India approved the constitution of an inquiry commission headed by Justice (Retd) BS Chauhan to probe into the genuineness of the encounter killing of Vikas Dubey. In August 2020, the Supreme Court had rejected a plea that had sought scrapping of the inquiry commission alleging relatives of Justice Chauhan are part of the Uttar Pradesh government; thus, he may give a biased report. While rejecting the plea, the court said that the petitioner based his plea on a news report and “There is no other material on record to confirm the truth or otherwise of the statement made in the newspaper.”