It is not the duty of the police officers to kill the accused

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1255 OF 1999
 Peoples Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. ... Appellants
 Versus
 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
 WITH
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1256 OF 1999
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1367 OF 1999
 WRIT PETITION (C) NO.316 OF 2008
 CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.47 OF 2011
 IN
 WRIT PETITION (C) NO.316 OF 2008
 TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.27 OF 2011
 O R D E R
 R.M. LODHA, CJI.

7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to live
with human dignity. Any violation of human rights is viewed seriously by
this Court as right to life is the most precious right guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution. The guarantee by Article 21 is available to every person
and even the State has no authority to violate that right.
8. In D.K. Basu1, this Court was concerned with custodial
violence and deaths in police lockups. While framing the requirements to
be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made
in that behalf, this Court issued certain directives as preventive measures.
1
 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal; [(1997) 1 SCC 416]
 6
While doing so, the Court in para 29 (page 433 of the Report) made the
following weighty observations:
 29. How do we check the abuse of police power?
 Transparency of action and accountability perhaps are two
 possible safeguards which this Court must insist upon.
 Attention is also required to be paid to properly develop work
 culture, training and orientation of the police force consistent
 with basic human values. Training methodology of the police
 needs restructuring. The force needs to be infused with basic
 human values and made sensitive to the constitutional
 ethos. Efforts must be made to change the attitude and
 approach of the police personnel handling investigations so
 that they do not sacrifice basic human values during
 interrogation and do not resort to questionable forms of
 interrogation. With a view to bring in transparency, the
 presence of the counsel of the arrestee at some point of time
 during the interrogation may deter the police from using
 third-degree methods during interrogation.
9. The observations made by this Court in Om Prakash2 (para
42, page 95 of the Report) are worth noticing:
 42. It is not the duty of the police officers to kill the accused
 merely because he is a dreaded criminal. Undoubtedly, the
 police have to arrest the accused and put them up for trial.
 This Court has repeatedly admonished trigger-happy police
 personnel, who liquidate criminals and project the incident as
 an encounter. Such killings must be deprecated. They are
 not recognised as legal by our criminal justice administration
 system. They amount to State-sponsored terrorism. But, one
 cannot be oblivious of the fact that there are cases where
 the police, who are performing their duty, are attacked and
 killed. There is a rise in such incidents and judicial notice
 must be taken of this fact. In such circumstances, while the
 police have to do their legal duty of arresting the criminals,
 they have also to protect themselves. The requirement of
 sanction to prosecute affords protection to the policemen,
 who are sometimes required to take drastic action against
2
 Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi-1
 and
Anr.; [(2012) 12 SCC 72]
 7
 criminals to protect life and property of the people and to
 protect themselves against attack. Unless unimpeachable
 evidence is on record to establish that their action is
 indefensible, mala fide and vindictive, they cannot be
 subjected to prosecution. Sanction must be a precondition to
 their prosecution. It affords necessary protection to such
 police personnel. The plea regarding sanction can be raised
 at the inception.