Fatal Force Not Justified

- IT is respectfully submitted before the hon’ble high court that the conviction of Mr bhushan under section * and conviction of mr Mahesh and mr mayur by the sessions court implicates many flaws and many facts of the case are neglected so there was has serious ailments that cause miscarriages of justice, necessitating the reversal of the decision in the sake of delivering justice. - As mr bhushan was officer incharge in the following case and it was his moral obligation as well as his duty to prevent any serious occurance of crime in his area, when he received the tip of the contraband it was not favourable to the circumstances of scene to hold back any minute, considering the urgency of the situation mr bhushan in good faith decided to rush to the said place without wasting a single minute. - As drug trafficking is a very serious crime and can lead to distrust in the society and is also opposed to public morality and law and order of that area - And mr Mahesh and mr mayur were given responsibility to check vehicles on the.....please provide valid case laws supporting each of these arguements

give citation for these case

*. **Duty to Prevent Crime:** - *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal* (*): Emphasizes the duty of police officers to act swiftly on credible information to prevent crime. *. **Good Faith Actions by Police:** - *Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani* (*): Highlights the importance of police officers acting in good faith and urgency when tackling serious crimes.these r incorrect case laws so provide correct ones

give citation for each

Good Faith Actions by Police:** - *State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni* (*): This case highlights the importance of police officers acting in good faith and with urgency when confronting serious crimes...its wrong so give something better

ISSUE *: WHETHER, MR. BHUSHAN WAS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION WHICH LED HIM TO EXECUTE THE ALLEGED DRUG BUST EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ENTIRE PLOT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CONCOCTED? It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Mr. Bhushan's decision to withhold the source of information was justified and necessary for preserving public safety and the effectiveness of law enforcement. Given the sensitivity of the information and the need to protect informants, disclosing their identities could have adverse consequences for future investigations and public trust. On the following grounds, it is demonstrated that Mr. Bhushan acted in accordance with established legal principles and judicial precedents: *. As under Section * of evidence law, “No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure. *. Section * of evidence act says that no magistrate or police officer shall be compelled to disclose the source of information regarding the commission of an offense if it would be detrimental to public interest or national security. Mr. Bhushan received critical information in his capacity as a police officer. Revealing the source could compromise the informant's safety and deter future intelligence sharing, which is vital for ongoing and future investigations. *. Given that Mr. Rakesh was a prominent politician, disclosing the informant's identity could endanger not only the informant but also their entire family. The potential for retaliation from politically influential individuals and party members further underscores the need to maintain confidentiality. In R.K. Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar , The Supreme Court held that public officers are not obligated to disclose confidential communications if it would harm public interest. And In Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani , court emphasized the importance of protecting sources of information to maintain the efficacy of law enforcement. *. The Principle of Public Interest Privilege allows for the withholding of certain information if its disclosure would harm public interest. It is often invoked to protect sensitive information that, if revealed, could compromise public safety, national security, or ongoing investigations. In State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh (*), The Supreme Court emphasized that protecting the identity of informants and maintaining confidentiality of official communications is essential to safeguard public interest and security. *. Informants provide valuable information under the assurance of confidentiality. Revealing an informant’s identity breaches this trust and discourages others from cooperating with law enforcement . In light of the aforementioned provisions and judicial precedents, it is clear that Mr. Bhushan's actions in protecting the informant's identity were legally sound and necessary for safeguarding public interest and ensuring effective law enforcement. The Court is respectfully requested to recognize the validity of Mr. Bhushan's actions based on the grounds outlined.  ISSUE *: WHETHER, THE INCIDENT OF MR. RAKESH DYING BY MR. BHUSHAN’S BULLET FALLS WITHIN THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS AS LAID OUT UNDER THE INDIANA NYAYA SANHITA, *. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Mr. Bhushan’s actions, resulting in the unfortunate death of Mr. Rakesh, were justified under the law. Mr. Bhushan, as a police officer, acted with the intention of preventing a serious crime and in response to an urgent situation. This argument will demonstrate that Mr. Bhushan’s conduct, though resulting in a tragic outcome, was legally protected and justified based on the following grounds: *. Section *(*) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Permits police officers to use "all means necessary" to effect an arrest. Mr. Bhushan’s use of force to prevent Mr. Rakesh’s escape falls within this provision. *. Section * of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Justifies actions taken by a person bound by law due to a mistake of fact. Mr. Bhushan believed he was executing his legal duty to prevent a serious crime. In P. Arulswami v. State of Madras (*), the court emphasized that Immediate, unpremeditated actions without criminal intent suggest a lack of malice. Mr. Bhushan’s actions were a spontaneous response to prevent Mr. Rakesh from escaping. *. The principle of Good Faith Actions protects officers acting on credible information, even if procedural requirements are not fully met. Section * CrPC supports that Mr. Bhushan’s intent to prevent a drug-related crime was legitimate, ensuring public safety. *. State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (*) emphasizes that procedural non-compliance can be excused if actions were in good faith and aimed at preventing a serious offense. The urgency of preventing Mr. Rakesh from escaping justified Mr. Bhushan’s immediate actions. *. The shooting of Mr. Rakesh can be viewed through Section * of the IPC, which Protects actions taken under a mistake of fact, where the person believes their actions are justified by law. There was no evidence of premeditation or malice in Mr. Bhushan’s actions, which were a spontaneous response to an evolving situation. *. The Doctrine of Necessity Justifies actions taken to prevent a greater harm, such as preventing a suspected drug smuggler from escaping. *. Section * of the CrPC protects public servants who act in good faith while performing their official duties. Mr. Bhushan’s role as a police officer involves preventing crime and apprehending suspects. If his actions, even if not explicitly covered by his official duties, were carried out with the intention of enforcing the law and maintaining public safety, this section might still apply. In light of the above arguments, it is respectfully submitted that Mr. Bhushan’s actions were legally justified, undertaken in good faith, and necessary under the circumstances to prevent a serious crime. The protections afforded by the relevant sections of the NDPS Act, CrPC, and IPC, combined with judicial precedents and the Doctrine of Necessity, substantiate that Mr. Bhushan acted within his rights and duties as a law enforcement officer. Therefore, it is prayed that the Court recognize the legitimacy of Mr. Bhushan’s actions and consequently, set aside any conviction or charges related to this incident. give list of all case laws mentioned in it with its correct citations

give list of laws used in it

just the statutes

just the name of all law n no sections

no ndps?

for issue * give case laws from respondent or rakeshes sire