Ordering a CBI probe into the “encounter” in which a 36-year-old rape accused was shot in both legs in May last year in Shravasti district of Uttar Pradesh, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed earlier this week, “… day in and day out… whenever the police apprehend a person, it often gives rise to another FIR alleging that when the accused was apprehended, he indulged into indiscriminate firing against the police team. Normally, not even a pellet touches even the uniform of any police person and all of them escape unhurt. The police fire one shot and it hits the accused on his knee or below it.”The court was hearing a police case against the accused, of “attacking” them during the May 11, 2025, encounter. In his order on August 13, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi pointed out several loopholes in the police version, including how 13 personnel were travelling in one police vehicle and the “shooting skills” of the SHO. He directed the CBI to complete the probe in three months, with the next hearing on November 23.The court also directed the trial court to pass a fresh order on the discharge application of the convict, against the police chargesheet, after providing him adequate legal aid.Read | In UP, on average, 5 encounters every day under Yogi Adityanath’s ruleConvicted in two other cases of sexual assault, all involving minors, it is not the first time the 36-year-old has won a court case against police. Sentenced to death for the rape-murder of a child in 2012, the accused was acquitted by the Supreme Court after spending 12 years in jail.In the latest case against him, he was sentenced to life on October 3, 2025, by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Shravasti, for the alleged rape of a six-year-old belonging to his village. He was on the run when he was held following the encounter.The 36-year-old was first accused in 2011 of molesting a 10-year-old girl. The District Court, Shravasti, sentenced him to four years of simple imprisonment.By then, a case had been registered against him over the rape and murder of a six-year-old girl, leading to the death sentence by the Sessions Court in 2014. This order, upheld by the High Court, was set aside by the Supreme Court in 2024.Story continues below this adRead | ‘Pay Rs 20 lakh or get shot in encounter’: UP cops booked for ‘extorting’ money from dairy ownerAs per police, on May 9, 2025, not long after he was acquitted by the apex court, the 36-year-old and two others abducted and raped a six-year-old and attempted to murder her. While the other two were apprehended, the 36-year-old went on the run.As per the police chargesheet, on May 11, 2025, the then SHO of the concerned police station received information that the accused was attempting to flee to Nepal, and that they laid a trap. According to police, as they zeroed in on him, he opened fire, and in the exchange of fire, he sustained gunshot injury in both legs.On October 3, 2025, he was convicted and sentenced to life.In its August 13 order, High Court judge Justice Vidyarthi said the SHO, Ashwini Kumar Dubey, tried to “mislead the court”. “The narration made in the FIR is that 13 persons including the SHO, five Sub-Inspectors, one Head Constable and six Constables were sitting in one vehicle. Unless the vehicle was a mini bus, it was neither physically possible nor legally permissible for 13 persons to sit in a government vehicle used by the police for patrolling and going to arrest an accused person.”Justice Vidyarthi observed: “The SHO claims that upon hearing the noise of loading of the weapon, he fired two gunshots with his service pistol in his self-defence and in self-defense of the police officials accompanying him, and both the shots fired during the night, by merely hearing the sound of loading the weapon, hit the revisionist (the accused) in both his legs.”Story continues below this adSHO Dubey told the court he fired from about 15 metres. Justice Vidyarthi asked whether he was capable of aiming and shooting from such a distance at night, whereupon he said it was a moonlit night. Judge Vidyarthi observed: “Prima facie it appears that the complainant SHO has not given a true narration in the FIR and he has not given a true narration to this court also.”Ordering a CBI inquiry, the judge said, “the shooting capacity of the complainant will also be assessed”.The High Court also questioned the “confession” made by the accused as per the police, noting that it was made “while he was lying down on the ground, injured with two gunshot injuries in his leg and surrounded by 23 police personnel”.On the conviction of the 36-year-old in the case, the High Court said “the prosecution acted with exceptional haste… and (he was) convicted in great haste”. “The counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist could not contest the matter properly and he could not even file an appeal against the conviction order within time.”Story continues below this adIt further observed that all 23 police officials involved in the encounter have been rewarded for their “good work”, and suggested: “The apparent cause of annoyance of the police against the revisionist may be the observations made by the Supreme Court against the prosecution in the judgment acquitting the revisionist in the earlier matter.”The High Court cited the Supreme Court’s observations in its 2024 order regarding the accused’s financial condition and inability to hire a lawyer. “In the present case also, at the time of remand… no legal aid was provided to the applicant.”