IN THE detailed judgment acquitting five Haryana policemen for the alleged fake encounter of gangster Sandeep Gadoli, the sessions court said that the policemen had fired in self-defence.

The court noted that Gadoli was a convict who had been sentenced to life imprisonment and was out on bail, hence there was a reasonable apprehension “enough to put the right of self defence into operation”.

The accused policemen had claimed that they had fired at Gadoli in a hotel room in Andheri on  February 7, 2016, in self-defence after he shot at them first.

“…analyzing and scrutinising the material with the plea of self-defence raised by accused police personnel, it is established in all probability that the police personnel who were on duty for apprehending a person with heavy criminal antecedents i.e. a life convict on bail have duly made out circumstances to recognise the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits while apprehending Sandip Gadoli…. One police person was having grievous injury on his forehead due to firearm. These bodily injuries caused to the police persons is certainly reasonable apprehension enough to put the right of self defence into operation,” the court said in the order, which was made available on Wednesday.

On March 27, the court had acquitted the five men along with two others from the case. The court said that two of the policemen had sustained injuries including on a vital part, that is his forehead.

“…the accused police personnel have brought on record probabilities and on weighing the same they are acceptable, natural, reasonable, and consistent with human experience. Hence, in view of the above discussion and the probable eventualities brought by accused persons on record by way of cross-examination, I accept the plea of accused police personnel that they acted in their self-defence in the given set of circumstances,” the court said.

It also said that there was no sanction to prosecute the men, although they were public servants, who were discharging their official duty.

“…even if it is assumed that the accused persons acted in excess of their official duty, then also they are entitled to claim protection of section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code,” the court said.

It also agreed with the accused on their contention that procedure was not followed while collecting evidence.