Intestines protruding from the stomach, a blackened face, bruises on legs and hands, more than a dozen gunshot injuries, and swollen testicles – that’s how the body of 37-year-old Bhalchandra Yadav looked like as it was laid on a pyre before cremation in his Padwaniya village of Madhya Pradesh’s Satna district. 

That’s how it also looks like in pictures taken by the local press and his family, who have been citing them as evidence to challenge the official version of the death. 

Bhalchandra was killed by the Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force in an encounter around 20 km away from his home in MP, at the Mado Bandha jungle in east UP’s Chitrakoot district on March 31, 2021. His widow Nathuniya Devi, 32, has since waged a legal battle against 14 policemen, alleging that he was abducted, tortured, and killed in a “fake encounter”. 

In May this year, the UP police had filed a final report (FR) indicating insufficient evidence to back the “fake encounter” allegations. While the district court is yet to take cognisance of the FR, Nathuniya filed a petition challenging it on October 11. The next hearing is scheduled for December 10.

Newslaundry has reviewed the 1,400-page final report, documents submitted by the police, including the panchayatnama, postmortem report, FSL report, a letter from the Lucknow-based state medico legal cell (SMLC) and statements of eyewitnesses that form the basis of the police claim to substantiate the encounter as genuine. We also spoke to 20 persons, including Bhalchandra’s family members, legal experts, former police officials, activists who have led fact-finding in encounter cases in UP and eyewitnesses quoted in police records. 

But several major loopholes raise concerns about the police investigating their own in encounter-related cases:

➨ The panchayatnama had not mentioned all the physical injuries.

➨ The postmortem report noted “no abnormality detected” for genital organs while the column related to “condition of nails” was not filled. But photos submitted by the family as evidence of alleged torture point to swelling in testicles and removal of nails from both hands.

➨ Even though the postmortem report referred to the blackening around gunshot wounds suggesting a close range shot, the FSL report estimated the distance between the deceased and police team to be 50 to 60 metres, which is highly unlikely.

➨ A second opinion by the SMLC concluded that the absence of gunpowder residue in the hands of the shooter does not prove that he didn’t discharge the weapon. Experts say otherwise.

➨ Statements of eyewitnesses mention receiving news about a police encounter from a charwah (cattle grazer) who they saw running away from the spot. But nobody is able to recall who this cattle grazer is.

Case background: From FIR to FR

A crumpled transparent polythene bag consisting of some old photos of Bhalchandra, along with photos of his body before the final rites, has been kept carefully by Lalchandra Yadav, an eyewitness in the case and the youngest of three brothers who had gone to drop Bhalchandra for a court hearing in Satna on March 31, 2021. “We are ready for a long fight,” said Lalchandra, sitting outside his house in Padwania, a village mostly inhabited by Yadavs and Adivasis. 

Bhalchandra was the only breadwinner in his family of six, including three sons and one daughter. He was dependent on agriculture and occasional labour under the MGNREGA scheme. “They (UPSTF) kidnapped my husband and then killed him. We came to know later that night when his photos began doing the rounds on social media,” said Nathuniya Devi. 

Almost four months after the encounter, on July 15, 2021, an application was sent on behalf of Nathuniya to the Special Judge at Chitrakoot’s district court. This was the first formal complaint in which a request was made under section 156 (3) – a magistrate can order a preliminary police probe followed by an FIR.

Nathuniya’s application came after she did not get a response to her letters seeking an FIR, dated April 8, 2021 and addressed to the chief minister, Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, UP additional DGP, National Commission for Backward Classes and National Human Rights Commission.

“At around 1.30 pm, my husband and brother-in-law had left from Satna district court and had passed by Kothi town when their bike was overtaken by a white Scorpio with STF personnel on board,” stated Nathuniya’s application. According to her, Bhalchandra and his brother Lalchandra were blindfolded and their hands were tied. While Bhalchandra was forced to get on to the four-wheeler, two policemen in plain clothes forcefully sat with Lalchandra on the bike as both the vehicles moved towards the Mado Bandha jungle.

“I could sense that more policemen awaited us when we stopped near the jungle. They began beating Bhalchandra. Soon I heard three to four rounds of shots being fired,” Lalchandra told Newslaundry. “My brother was 15-20 feet away when they killed him.”

Other allegations by Bhalchandra’s widow – as mentioned in her 2021 application – were the presence of multiple bruises on body suggesting beating by lathi-danda (bamboo sticks), forced removal of nails from both hands, the body reeking of petrol suggesting forced cremation, and reluctance on part of the UPSTF in handing over the body to family members. Local Congress former MLA Neelanshu Chaturvedi had to intervene before the family received the body for final rites. 

On October 7, 2021, Additional Sessions Judge Vineet Narayan Pandey gave an order in Nathuniya’s favour. Taking cognisance of the photographs, especially those revealing the condition of nails and fingers on hand, the district court had found Bhalchandra’s death to be “suspicious”. Newslaundry has also seen these photographs which were submitted as evidence in court.

“Whether the death was caused due to police’ action during an encounter in self-defence or whether they (police) went outside the ambit of self-defence is a matter worth probing,” the fast track court order noted. Citing the 2010 NHRC guidelines that prescribe some dos and don'ts for police encounters, including “not using force such as to inflict more harm to the assaulting criminal than is necessary for the purpose of defence of your body and those of others,” the court ordered for filing of an FIR by an officer who is rank-wise senior than the head of the STF team. 

Nine months later, on July 28, 2022, an FIR was finally filed at Chitrakoot’s Bahil Purwa police station naming 14 policemen.

From the STF Lucknow team, sub-inspector Amit Kumar Tiwari, sub-inspector Santosh Kumar Singh, head constable Uma Shankar, and constables Bhupendra Singh and Shivanand Shukla were named. The Chitrakoot SWAT officials named were sub-inspector Shravan Kumar Singh, sub-inspector Anil Kumar Sahu, head constable Raees Khan, and constables Dharmendra Kumar Verma and Rahul Yadav.

Other local officials included Bahil Purwa police station in-charge Deendayal Singh, constable Ramkesh Kushwaha, Markundi police station in-charge Ramesh Chandra, and Chitrakoot SP Ankit Mittal. 

The charges in the FIR included IPC sections 147 (punishment for rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 364 (kidnapping) , 396 (dacoity with murder) and 302 (punishment for murder).

In May 2024, Chitrakoot Deputy SP Jai Karan Singh, who’s the IO (investigating officer) in the case, submitted an FR. “A case had been filed in connection with the death of Bhalchandra Yadav during a police encounter. It is not unnatural for the complainant, Nathuniya Devi, to harbour ill-intentions for the police personnel involved,” stated one of the remarks in the FR. 

“Since a case had been registered against her brother-in-law, Lalchandra”, the FR noted, “this case is aimed at building pressure as an afterthought”.

“I have filed this case out of my own volition,” Nathuniya told this reporter. Seated among her in-laws, adjusting her veil, she added, “No one has pressured me.” 

Injuries ‘missed’ in panchayatnama

For Bhalchandra’s family, the first face-to-face interaction with the police began when his father Ram Avtar reached the Sadar District Hospital in Sonepur, Chitrakoot, to identify the body as part of a legal procedure, commonly referred to as panchayatnama. 

On April 1, 2021, Nayab Tehsildar Ramanand Mishra made an entry into a form, known as inquest report, a mandatory requirement under section 174 of CrPC, in “cases involving unnatural deaths or deaths under suspicious circumstances”. The cause of death in this form was noted as “died in a police encounter”. The timing when the information related to the encounter on March 31 reached the nearest Bahil Purwa police station was noted as 7.45 pm. Mishra, along with five other family members of Bhalchandra, officially recognised the corpse.

Sixty-five-year-old Ram Avtar was among the five panchas (or eyewitnesses) who saw the body in the mortuary. “There were bullet injuries along with signs of being beaten by lathi-danda…Whether they threw stones or something else, but his testicles were abnormally swollen.”

But the panchayatnama made a note of just 10 injuries, all in the upper part of the body, including a fracture in the right hand. There was no mention of bruises due to alleged beating or swelling in private parts. The removed nails, as visible in photographs of the body, also did not find a mention.

In his conclusion, Ramanand Mishra noted, “In my opinion, deceased Bhalchandra succumbed to multiple injuries sustained during police encounter. Yet, in order to ascertain the exact cause of death, it is important to conduct a postmortem.”

The FR featured statements from the panchayatnama eyewitnesses that were recorded in March 2023, but these were all identical and did not refer to any external injuries. In an identical set of statements, Ram Avtar as well as five of his other relatives have been quoted as telling the police, “Upon receiving information about Bhalchandra’s death in a police encounter, I reached the district hospital, and identified the deceased. This panchayatnama was filled in front of me.” 

But why didn’t the panchayatnama make a note of all the injuries considering it’s the first step of documentation of an unnatural death?  

Speaking to Newslaundry, senior advocate at the Allahabad High Court Kamal Krishna Roy claimed, “It is a deliberate miss and is purposely done to prove that the encounter is genuine.” 

We reached out to Nayab Tehsildar Ramanand Mishra who had prepared the inquest report. On being asked about no mention of injuries other than gunshot wounds and a fracture, he replied, “Only those injuries which are zahira chot (evident as external wounds) are written about in a panchayatnama.” 

When this reporter referred to photos of Bhalchandra’s body that his family had shared showing swelling in private parts alleging torture, Mishra said, “I would be able to tell only when the file is in front of me.”

Postmortem refers to blackening of wounds 

The same day of the inquest report, a panel of three doctors, comprising Dr Anuj Kumar Singh, Dr Sandeep Pal and Dr BS Dwivedi, conducted a postmortem at the district hospital in Chitrakoot. The cause of death was ascertained to be “shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.” Ante mortem injuries refer to wounds the body has received before death. 

The postmortem report recorded a total of 15 injuries along with two fractured ribs and a fracture in right elbow. While there were seven wounds of entry, the report mentioned six wounds of exit, one lacerated wound and one contusion. Gunshot wounds are usually categorised as wounds of entry and exit respectively depending on the trajectory of the bullet.  

In the case of Bhalchandra, blackening was noticed around three wounds of entry – in the right axilla (or underarm), right scapula (shoulder) and left thumb. The panel found “no abnormality” in genital organs while the column stating the condition of nails was not filled. 

According to advocate Kamal Krishna Roy, “blackening occurs only when a bullet is fired from a close range”. 

“Possibility of blackening around a firearm injury arises only when a shot has been fired from close proximity,” claimed Akram Akhtar Choudhary, a human rights lawyer based in western UP who was part of a fact-finding team in 2018 that had investigated encounter killings in Kandhla, Kairana and Shamli.

As soon as a shot is fired, the bullet, dislodged as a projectile from the barrel of a gun, triggers an act of combustion which is accompanied by production of smoke and heat. Blackening of a wound as a result of firearm injury signifies a short range shot since the “smoke particles are light and cannot travel afar”, hence, “blackening is caused by the smoke deposits.” 

In the widely popular book in legal circles titled, Medical Jurisprudence, authors RM Jhala and VB Raju dwell at length on the ballistic principles that can help decode the circumstances around any firearm injury. “As soon as the mass of flame, soot and the charge leave the barrel, they are counteracted by air resistance and gravity. Hence carbon particles cannot maintain their force and flight beyond certain distances viz., 18 inches or 45 cms,” states an excerpt from the book. 

Among the wounds of exits, one injury on the chest, as mentioned in the post mortem report, suggests a point blank range shot. This wound of exit which was 10cm x 5cm in dimensions was found on the left side of chest. “While most of the wounds of exit range between 2.5 cm to 3 cm, this particular wound of exit which is 10cm x 5cm in a vital part like chest is a point-blank shot since a bullet from a close range will have a higher velocity making a puncture of this size,” claimed advocate Prabal Pratap, a legal researcher and practicing lawyer at the Allahabad High Court.

Reference to external wounds, other than firearm injuries, appear in the FR in the statements of doctors who conducted the postmortem. These statements, while admitting to the presence of other extraneous injuries, attribute the cause to the “encounter being carried on rough terrain like that of a jungle”. This tries to contradict the family’s claim regarding external injuries as tell-tale signs of torture. 

In identical statements recorded between April and June last year, Dr Sandeep Pal, Dr Anuj Singh and Dr BS Dwivedi told the IO of UP Police: “During a police encounter carried out in an area marked by rugged terrain comprising stones like that of a jungle, it’s quite possible for a person to sustain the kind of injuries as seen on this body.”  

When this reporter contacted Dr Anuj Singh and asked about the nature of injuries sustained in jungle-like terrain, he said, “I can’t say anything about it.” On being asked about his understanding, as a medical practitioner, of the blackening around a bullet injury, he said, “I will tell the court.” 

Dr BS Dwivedi could not be reached for a response. On being asked about allegations by the family regarding beating by lathi-danda and nails being removed, Dr Sandeep Pal said, “The postmortem was videographed, so if nails were removed or the person was beaten up then the legal team (of deceased) must have had access to the report (referring to video).” 

In response to the question why the column related to the “condition of nails” was not filled in the postmortem report, Dr Pal said, “We do not record negative findings and for verification you have the video.” 

Back in Padwaniya village, a sense of helplessness and anger is palpable in the voice of Ram Avtar. The family feels dignity was denied even in death and yet they continue to live in fear. “Around a hundred people from my own village saw the body that day,” said Ram Avtar. Some of these locals can also be spotted in the photos of Bhalchandra’s cremation where they stood with mouths and noses covered with a gamchha (towel). 

“We want the government to listen to our guhaar (request)”, a teary-eyed Ram Avtar said with folded hands. “This is sheer injustice.” 

His brother, Ram Lal, too, pitched in. “We were shocked to see the condition of the face.” 

Contradictions in FSL report 

The next scientific step in documenting the trail of an encounter is that of forensic examination of pieces of evidence from the field. But based on the views of experts, we found ostensible loopholes in the seven-page report submitted by Jhansi-based FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) as well. 

In his report dated August 18, 2021, Deputy Director Bhoori Singh, while referring to the inspection of the encounter spot, said the approximate distance “between the point where the criminal collapsed during the encounter and STF team is 60 metres while that for SWAT team is 50 metres”.

This tabulation of distance is questionable according to lawyers and experts this reporter spoke with. “Now the STF is saying that they were 50 metres away during the encounter, but then there is blackening around some gunshot injuries which means such a shot could not have been fired from such a long distance,” claimed advocate Rajendra Singh Yadav, who is representing Bhalchandra’s wife Nathuniya in this case.  

Senior advocate Kamal Krishna Roy also concurs with Rajendra Singh Yadav’s opinion. “Sixty metres is such a long distance. Blackening cannot happen if a shot is fired from 50 metres or 60 metres for that matter.” 

When Dr Anuj Singh, one of the doctors in the three-member post mortem panel, was asked about the contradictions arising due to the mention of blackening in the postmortem report and the estimation of a distance of 50 to 60 metres in the FSL report, with the police trying to discard the theory of close-range shootout, he said, “Whatever we saw has been mentioned in the report and this was accompanied by videography as well. So whatever questions are there, we will tell the court accordingly.”

Dr Sandeep Pal also stood by his remarks in the postmortem report. “Blackening simply means a nearby shot.”

Blackening isn’t the only contentious claim in the FSL report.

Upon forensic examination of swabs from the hands of Bhalchandra, it was concluded that “remnants of firing like nitrite, lead and copper were not found in the swabs of left and right hand.” This observation necessitated another opinion since the very theory of Bhalchandra’s involvement in the shootout came under the scanner.  

For legal experts, such an observation related to absence of gunshot residue blows a hole in the police theory. Gunshot residue refers to the vaporised mass of particles left from the bullet after combustion with its traces left behind on the shooter’s hand. 

“An encounter was carried out and the person who was holding the gun also died in the shootout so where is the chance of removing gunshot residue since the deceased didn’t get to wash his hands or resorted to using some chemical in order to get rid of traces,” asked senior advocate Kamal Krishna Roy. 

Second opinion by SMLC

On November 3, 2022, IO Bhaskar Verma wrote a letter to the additional director of the SMLC. “While the police personnel maintain that owing to an emergency situation, in a close encounter (nazdeeki muthbhed), shots were fired in different directions, there are some issues which still need to be clarified,” stated the letter. 

Four questions were posed about the nature of injuries and analysis done by the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Question no. 1: A .315 bore rifle had been recovered from Bhalchandra but the FSL report stated that firing-related remains were not detected in the swabs of hands of the deceased. Under what circumstances is this possible?

Question no. 2: As mentioned in the FSL report, while blackening was noticed around three wounds of entry, the exact area of blackening had not been specified. Ten holes labelled H1 to H10 were also found on the shirt of the deceased with remains of firing such as lead and copper. Since Bhalchandra was wearing a shirt, is it possible for blackening to appear around the wounds of entry?

Question no. 3: The postmortem report has mentioned fracture in the fourth and fifth rib along with damage to both the lungs, heart and liver. Is it possible to sustain these kinds of injuries in an encounter?

Question no. 4: The doctor who prepared the postmortem report has also mentioned a fracture in the right elbow. Is it possible for someone to sustain such an injury during an encounter in a jungle surrounded by bushes?

The response from Dr Ghyasuddin Khan, Additional Director at the State Medico Legal Cell, defended the police version.

Regarding the absence of any firing-related remains in the swabs from hands, the medico legal cell opined that “it is not necessary for GSR (gunshot residue) to be present in the hand of the person”. Despite the absence of GSR, the cell concluded that the “firearm was self-discharged”, which means the gun was fired by the deceased. 

On the colouring of wounds, Dr Ghyasuddin Khan wrote, “finding of blackening may be vision error of the autopsy surgeon.” And as far as the fracture in elbow was concerned the State Medico Legal Cell attributed it to “firearm injuries”.

On being asked about the “vision in error”, Dr Anuj Singh, who conducted the postmortem, said, “Why would we lie about it? The court will make a note of the video (of the postmortem conducted) and then match our findings.”

Does blackening around a wound of entry happen even with a shirt on? “Yes, blackening will still happen,” said Dr Sandeep Pal.  

Criticising the police move to reach out to the SMLC for its opinion, advocate Kamal Krishna Roy alleged, “Second opinion is manipulation by the encounter team just so that they can save their jobs.” Countering Dr Ghyasuddin’s view on the gun being discharged despite the absence of GSR, Roy alleged, “If someone has used a firearm, then it’s sure that the person did load the gun with a bullet as well, so presence of gunshot residue is but natural from forensic exam point of view.” 

Meanwhile, advocate Akram Akhtar Choudhary, who has appeared in court in several encounter cases, expressed concern about the nature of injuries to the lung, heart and liver. “If an encounter had been carried out in an area with dense population and a person had jumped from a certain height then a fracture is understandable. Else, a ruptured heart and liver suggests torture since gunshot injury is not present near these vital parts…If there is no injury due to firearm in private parts then swelling suggests torture.” 

The police version

On June 15, 2021, a magisterial inquiry report submitted by Chitrakoot’s SDM Ram Prakash had presented the official version. Such an inquiry is required to be completed within three months of a police encounter, with the report sent to the DGP.

The report is a mandatory requirement under the 2010 guidelines formulated by the NHRC and reiterated again in the 2014 Supreme Court judgment in PUCL versus State of Maharashtra in order to keep a check on police excesses. 

As per the statement by sub-inspector Amit Kumar Tiwari from STF Lucknow unit, based on inputs received from a mukhbir (informer), both the STF as well as local police teams had reached the Mado Bandha jungle at 3.45 pm. An input was received about a potential meeting between history-sheeter and dacoit Gauri Yadav and some persons ahead of panchayat elections due later in April that year. 

Tiwari’s statement further listed out the chain of events. “As soon as we proceeded inside the jungle, we saw five to six men standing with weapons in their hands. Both sub-inspector Shravan Kumar Singh (from SWAT team) and myself raised our voices and asked those men to surrender,” said Tiwari, as quoted in his statement. “But those men began firing. We, too, fired shots in our self-defence.” An alert regarding the ongoing shoot-out was sent to the control room at 4.30 pm.

“As soon as one of them got shot and fell on the ground, firing came to a halt,” Tiwari told the SDM. “Since the firing had stopped, we proceeded forward. It was then that the criminal who had fallen on the ground,with an intention to kill us, picked up a rifle in order to fire at us.”

“We then fired back in self-defence,” said sub-inspector Amit Kumar Tiwari. 

While taking cognisance of the family’s version with respect to abduction and signs of beating seen on body, SDM Ram Prakash labelled the encounter as “genuine”. Lalchandra had got the registration number of the vehicle, in which STF team had picked them up, wrong and the family could not produce an independent witness who had seen them getting abducted, the report said.  

In statements recorded by the Chitrakoot police from August 3, 2023 to September 25, 2023, 11 out of 14 policemen named in the FIR reiterated a similar narrative presented during the magisterial inquiry. 

These 11 policemen unanimously told the IO, “We have not done anything illegal. We were following the rules as part of the drive related to eradication of bandits and acted on the basis of trustworthy information from mukhbir.” In response to follow-up questions – 1) Did your team step out of Chitrakoot on March 31, 2021 and, 2) Did you pick up Bhalchandra and his brother Lalchandra from somewhere – they all said, “No, these are baseless allegations.”

Of the three others, SP Ankit Mittal denied any crime and said he had been informed of the encounter at “4.33 or 4.34 pm” and “then around 5 or 5.15 pm, the district control room informed me that a criminal had been seriously injured”. Inspector Deendayal Singh said he had reached the spot after the encounter had ended, and constable Ramkesh Kushwahan said he saw “that criminal lying on the ground” when he reached the spot.

In order to bolster their claim regarding the official trip from Chitrakoot city to Chitrakoot rural, the STF submitted a copy of the running register of the vehicle used during the encounter. This document was submitted on September 14, 2023. The local police unit which had aided the STF in this operation, too, submitted a copy of the running register of their respective vehicle for the month of March 2021. 

A running register is used to note daily distance travelled by a police vehicle marking the start and stop point, purpose behind trip and distance travelled.

A page from the register submitted by STF Lucknow noted a distance of 161 km from Chitrakoot city to Chitrakoot dehat on March 31, 2021. Similarly a page from the register submitted by local police dated March 31, 2021 stated the purpose as “investigation D13 gang/ encounter” with a stop point mentioned as Mado Bandha. D13 was the nomenclature used by police for the gang led by dacoit Gauri Yadav. 

Countering the police theory, Lalchandra showed us the order sheet dated March 31, 2021 from the Satna district court with Bhalchandra’s signature. An order sheet is a legal document, maintained by a peshkar (court clerk), that tracks developments in a case based on every single hearing.

“My brother had been named during the course of investigation in a theft-related case. He had got bail and the first hearing in this matter was on March 31, 2021,” said Lalchandra. It is an hour-long drive from Padwaniya village to Satna district court with a distance of 55 km. “On April 1, he was supposed to appear again in court so we thought of travelling on both days. Anyways, it was the month of Chaitra (or harvest season) so there was no point in staying in Satna.”

Lalchandra along with Bhalchandra had started off for Satna at 10 am that day and after attending the hearing were on their way back at around 2.30 pm. “We had crossed Satna and Kothi town and were passing through Chithara area which is marked by jungles when a white Scorpio came from behind,” said Lalchandra.

Between July 2022 to May 2024, since the FIR was filed, three IOs led the investigation in this case. These included DSP Bhaskar Verma, who got transferred to Ghaziabad, followed by DSP Shiv Prakash Sonkar, who after retirement handed over the investigation to current DSP of Chitrakoot, Jai Karan Singh. Bhaskar Verma and Shiv Prakash Sonkar could not be contacted for a response.

When this reporter reached out to DSP Jai Karan Singh, he said, “We have no information regarding the protest petition. If the investigation was ongoing, I could have responded to questions but now that the report has been submitted, it is a matter for the court.” On being asked specifically about the postmortem report, FSL report and the SMLC opinion that were part of the investigation, Singh replied, “The matter is subjudice now so I can’t speak about it.”

Cover-up by eyewitnesses

UP police have included statements by eight independent eyewitnesses who were presumably present around the spot where the encounter took place. None of them witnessed anything related to the encounter but claimed to have heard gunshots, confirming that a “genuine” encounter indeed took place in their vicinity.

In statements that are exact replicas of each other there is mention of a cattle grazer who reportedly informed the eyewitnesses that gunshots they heard were due to an “encounter between police and dacoit Gauri Yadav”. We don’t get to know in the entire FR who this grazer is.

For instance, in a statement dated February 12, 2023, eyewitness Kamla Yadav, who owns a piece of land near the Mado Bandha jungle, told the police, “I don’t remember the date since this happened two years ago. At around 4 pm or 5 pm, while I was talking to someone, we heard gunshots from the side of the jungle. Soon, we saw a charwah who came running from that side.”

“What happened, we asked him. He informed us that an encounter just took place between police and dacoit Gauri Yadav. Thereafter we returned to our home,” concludes the statement.  

Newslaundry spoke to two eyewitnesses – Munni Lal and Sukhbhawan – residents of Bilhari village in Chitrakoot whose statements have been quoted in the FR. “I was not present at the site of the encounter but did see police going towards the Mado Bandha jungle.”

“We heard sounds of bullets, we didn’t see anything.”

In his statement, Sukhbhawan told the IO that he had “heard policemen asking criminals to surrender and those men, in return, hurling abuses at the police.” When asked about the day of the encounter and whether he heard any exchange between the police and others, Sukhbhawan said, “I did not hear anything except for the sound of bullets.“

A local journalist, three passersby and an RTO (Regional Transport Office) personnel are among other eyewitnesses whose statements have been included to counter the allegations regarding abduction of Bhalchandra and his brother Lalchandra. 

Jitendra Mohan Shukla, correspondent with Hindi newspaper, Aaj Kanpur, in his statement recorded on June 3, 2023 told the police, “On March 31, 2021, I along with my brother had gone to Kothi in Satna district and were on our way to home (Chitrakoot) between 2 to 2.30 pm. Neither did we see a Scorpio vehicle nor did we spot any person with hands tied behind being driven on a motorcycle.” Kothi town was the site from where, as per Lalchandra, they had been overtaken by the STF men who came in a white Scorpio. 

Shukla further talked about how during the course of his own reportage he had not found anything suspicious in connection with the encounter. “As soon as news related to the police encounter went viral, I had gone to the spot and spoke to locals and nearby villages, and had found the incident to be true. Only after I was sure about the encounter did my story get published in the newspaper,” read his statement.

According to his claims on social media, Shukla was the BJP’s former Chitrakoot district treasurer, and on Twitter, he identifies himself as BJP Kisan Morcha district vice-president.

But did his story really get published?  

“I never went to the site of the encounter or spoke to locals there. Our district correspondent was chasing this news so a story was published based on police’ version,” Shukla told this reporter while speaking on phone. Clarifying that journalism is part of social service for him and that he’s a lawyer as well, Shukla, while lauding the efforts of local police, said: “This place which was tapasthali (place of worship) for Ram had been a haven for bandits since the last 40-50 years stalling all the development work. The Yogi Adityanath government has accomplished the feat of making Chitrakoot dacoit-free.”

Another passerby, Aijaz Hasan Siddiqui along with RTO official Raj Rishi Tiwari who was stationed at a checkpost on the same route, reiterated that “they had neither seen a white Scorpio nor a man with hands tied on a motorcycle.” There weren’t any CCTV cameras around, Tiwari told the police.  

Like Jitendra Mohan Shukla, the statement by Aijaz Hasan Siddiqui also reiterated that he himself had met locals near the encounter site and ascertained that such an incident indeed took place. When we asked Siddiqui about it, he denied saying any such thing in his statement. “I didn’t speak to locals or saw anything for that matter.”

‘Encounter raj’ in UP?

In September 2024, after a looting case suspect, Mangesh Yadav, was killed by UPSTF in Sultanpur, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav alleged that encounters were targeting members of a particular caste and termed the UPSTF as “Special Thakur Force.” Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath is also Thakur by caste. On the other hand, Yadavs, who belong to the Other Backward Class, have been among the traditional supporter base of the Samajwadi Party. 

Soon after coming to power, chief minister Yogi Adityanath, in an interview to India TV had said, “Agar apradh karenge toh thok diye jayenge (if one commits a crime, he will be knocked down).”

Sulkhan Singh, who served as the UP DGP from April to September 2017 under Yogi Adityanath’s first term as chief minister, earlier took to Facebook to lament the fate of policemen facing trial in encounter cases. “If ministers and senior police officers will issue statements like thok do (kill them), a certain perception is inevitable. In order to maintain law and order, you can’t capture someone and then murder him,” he told Newslaundry.

From March 20, 2017 to September 5, 2024, UP has reportedly recorded 12,964 police encounters, with 207 individuals gunned down during this period. Of these 207, 52 were killed in UPSTF operations. Bhalchandra was casualty number 25 during this period.

Meanwhile, allegations of caste-based encounters have rubbed off on Bhalchandra’s family as well. His relatives wonder if a meeting with Akhilesh Yadav can help in highlighting Bhalchandra Yadav’s case. 

Bhalchandra’s criminal background

Chitrakoot is known for its lush green jungles along with rocky terrain, typical in the arid bundelkhand region. Popularly referred to as beehad (rugged terrain), the area was known to be a safe haven for dacoits like Dadua alias Shiv Kumar Patel – the Veerappan of the north – killed in a 2007 encounter by UPSTF.

The district court in Chitrakoot, on the very outset, looks like any decrepit physical structure except that it has designated courts dealing with cases filed under the DAA (or Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983). 

While some lawyers have a place to sit underneath a tin shade, advocate Rajendra Singh Yadav’s chamber comprises a chair and wooden bench next to an electric pole. In November 2021, he wrote a letter to the Bar Council of India, NHRC, UP DGP and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath: “The STF personnel and policemen named as accused often come to the court premises and talk about either slapping a false case or getting me killed…If any untoward incident happens with me then STF and district level police should be held responsible.”

Rajendra Singh Yadav maintained that Bhalchandra was “not a history sheeter”. “He was made an accused in one case in MP and another case in UP, that’s the only criminal history he had.”

The annexure related to his criminal history mentions three cases in which Bhalchandra was made an accused. The first FIR was filed in 2020 at Majhgawan police station in Satna district of Madhya Pradesh. The second FIR was registered against Bhalchandra at Chitrakoot’s Bahilpurwa police station in 2021. The third FIR, filed after the encounter, was also registered at the same police station in Chitrakoot. 

All these FIRs were filed under the DAA Act along with IPC provisions related to extortion; attacking, injuring or preventing a public servant from performing their duties; voluntarily causing hurt to another person; rioting while armed with a deadly weapon; intentional insult with intent of provoking breach of peace and the Arms Act. 

In the first two FIRs, Bhalchandra is a co-accused along with history sheeter and dacoit Gauri Yadav who had 47 cases filed against him since 2004. Seven months after Bhalchandra’s encounter, in October 2021, Gauri, too, was killed by the UPSTF. The face-off was similar to Bhalchandra’s.

According to a report in the Times of India, the encounter between Gauri Yadav, his men and the STF was carried out “near the Mado Bandha jungle” in Chitrakoot. Based on inputs, the STF team had reached the spot where they saw armed men who were asked to surrender. Gauri Yadav “died in the exchange of fire that ensued”. 

Bhalchandra’s uncle Ram Lal, while denying his nephew’s link with Gauri Yadav, claimed, “He (Gauri) was a relative, that’s all.” 

“They could’ve put him in jail and slapped more charges, how can they kill my brother?” asked Lalchandra. Their elder brother Phoolchandra works as a teacher at a government school.

On April 1, 2021, a day after the encounter, Lalchandra was named in an FIR registered at Chitrakoot’s Markundi police station. He was charged under the Arms Act with the police claiming recovery of a .315 bore rifle along with four bullets. He is currently out on bail after spending six months behind bars. 

The 2021 complaint filed by the police stated, “Lalchandra was arrested at around 5 am as he was trying to abscond following the encounter with members of the Gauri gang.” 

“When rakshak (protector) turns into bhakshak (predator) then who would turn to the police,” asked Lalchandra, standing next to the motorcycle from which his elder brother was allegedly abducted. “We don’t trust the police anymore.”