Introduction

Section 46 of CrPc is a pivotal legal provision that governs the manner in which police officers can carry out arrests in India. It is crucial for maintaining law and order while safeguarding the rights and dignity of individuals. The section outlines the concept of “reasonable force,” which allows police officers to arrest a suspect while using the minimum necessary physical coercion. This article delves into the nuances of Section 46, examines the idea of reasonable force, and explores cases where there has been a misuse of this section by applying more force than needed.

Understanding Section 46 of CrPC

Section 46 Arrest how made.—(1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action:

Provided that where a woman is to be arrested, unless the circumstances indicate to the contrary, her submission to custody on an oral intimation of arrest shall be presumed and, unless the circumstances otherwise require or unless the police officer is a female, the police officer shall not touch the person of the
woman for making her arrest.

(2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.

(3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.

Section 46 of CrPC empowers Indian police officers with the authority to arrest individuals suspected of committing a crime. However, it is imperative to understand that this power comes with the responsibility to use force judiciously and within legal boundaries. The primary objective of this section is to ensure that arrests are conducted with the least possible violence and injury to the suspect.

The Concept of Reasonable Force

Reasonable force, as mentioned in Section 46, refers to the minimum amount of physical coercion required to apprehend a suspect. It ensures that the person is taken into custody without inflicting unnecessary harm. This concept is built on the principle of proportionality, which means that the force used must be commensurate with the resistance encountered. Section 49 of CrPC provides that “the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.

Conditions for Using Reasonable Force

Section 46 lays down specific conditions under which the use of reasonable force is considered justifiable in India. These conditions include situations where the suspect attempts to evade custody, resists arrest, or poses a threat to the safety of the officers or others. It is important to note that reasonable force should only be applied when less intrusive methods are ineffective or impractical.

Guidelines for Police Officers

To ensure the proper implementation of Section 46, Indian police departments often establish comprehensive guidelines and training programs for their officers. These guidelines provide officers with a framework for assessing situations, using force responsibly, and employing de-escalation techniques when appropriate. Proper training equips officers with the necessary skills to handle potentially volatile situations more effectively.

Balancing Officer Safety and Individual Rights

One of the most significant challenges faced by law enforcement in India is striking a balance between ensuring officer safety and respecting the rights of the accused. The use of reasonable force demands a delicate equilibrium where officers must protect themselves and others while upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

Section 46(3) stipulates that there is no right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offense punishable by death or imprisonment for life. However, there are no proper guidelines in place to ensure that police officers use their powers fairly, as they are the ones who institute an FIR. Thus, there is a possibility to argue that the offense for which they have taken someone’s life is due to the gravity of the offense committed by the individua as stated in FIR framed by them.

Misuse of Section 46: Applying More Force Than Needed

Despite the clear guidelines on reasonable force, there have been instances in India where this section has been misused by some police officers. In certain cases, officers have applied excessive force during arrests, resulting in severe injuries or even fatalities. Such misuse not only violates the rights of individuals but also erodes public trust in law enforcement.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India laid down specific guidelines to prevent custodial violence and ensure the protection of individual rights during arrests. The court emphasized that police officers must follow due process and use reasonable force, if necessary, to effect an arrest. The case highlighted the importance of safeguarding the rights of individuals and holding law enforcement accountable for any misuse of power.

PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014)

In this case, the SC was dealing with writ petitions questioning the genuineness of 99 encounter killings by the Mumbai Police in which 135 alleged criminals were shot dead between 1995 and 1997. The supreme court have given 16 guidelines to be followed by police officers. It stated that police officer is not entitled to cause fake encounters.

 State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venugopal (1963)

The accused were all policeman, they arrested a person on the suspicion of receiver of stolen property and entered house by breaking it. Three days after arrest, arrested person was found dead. The accused were charged with offences under section 348, 331 and 201 of IPC.

The trial court convicted the accused. Later, HC ordered whatever police did was justified. The state made challenge in Supreme Court, where it observed:

“To be able to say that an act is done ‘under’ a provision of law, one must discover the existence of reasonable apprehension between the provisions and the act. The High Court fell into the error of thinking that whatever a police officer does to a person suspected of a crime at a time when the officer is engaged in investigation that crime should be held to be done in discharge of his official duties to investigate and as such under the provisions of the law that imposed this duty on him. This view is wholly unwarranted in law.”

Ensuring Accountability and Reform

To address the issue of misuse of Section 46 in India, it is crucial to focus on accountability and reform within law enforcement agencies. Establishing a robust system for investigating allegations of excessive force and holding officers accountable for their actions can serve as a deterrent against misuse. Additionally, continuous training on conflict resolution, de-escalation techniques, and implicit bias can help reduce the likelihood of unnecessary force during arrests.

Conclusion

Section 46 of CrPC plays a vital role in facilitating lawful arrests while preserving the dignity and rights of individuals in India. The concept of reasonable force underscores the importance of measured responses during police actions. However, cases of misuse have highlighted the pressing need for comprehensive police reform. By fostering accountability, implementing proper training, and promoting transparency, Indian society can work towards a law enforcement system that respects the rule of law and ensures the safety and rights of all its citizens.

Read more similar topics by clicking here.

section 46 of crpc, section 46 of crpc, section 46 of crpc, section 46 of crpc, section 46 of crpc, section 46 of crpc, section 46 of crpc, section 46 of crpc, section 46 of crpc, section 46 of crpc,