old, no independent witness came forward to depose or reveal new facts. The Investigation Officer relied on statements of police witnesses and CFSL report. The doctors had preserved the hand wash of the deceased during post mortem. In reply to the Commission’s show cause notice, reply was received from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Delhi. 4.143 On consideration of the material on record, the Commission observed that State Government is conspicuously silent on the absence of gunshot residue in the hand wash of the deceased. If Ashok alias Bunti had used firearm to attack the police, the gunshot residue must have been necessarily found in the hand wash. The police could have justified its action only by invoking the plea of self defense. Such plea would be available to the police only if it was able to prove that deceased Ashok alias Bunti had fired at them. The absence of gunshot residue in the hand wash, however, indicates that he had not fired at the police and, therefore, the police could not have opened fire and then justified such act by taking the plea of self defense. As regards non-production of any public witness, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vigilance explained that if any person from the public had been made to join the investigation, his life would have been at risk. If the police was so conscious of risk to the life of public witnesses, it should not have asked any public witness at all to join. The FIR, however, mentioned that the police did request some public witnesses to join them. As stated above, the incident took place in the month of March at about 09.45 p.m., a number of public persons must have seen the occurrence at that time. They could have been asked to join investigation because after the death of Ashok alias Bunti, there was no likelihood of their being exposed to any risk. It was pointed out by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vigilance in the reply that there were five entry wounds and corresponding exit wounds on the body of the deceased Ashok. Out of these five wounds, two were on the hands of the deceased and one was on the shoulder. The remaining two entry wounds were on the neck and chest. It was also pointed out that there is no mention of blackening or tattooing on the margins of the firearm entry wounds in the post mortem report. It was contended that the post mortem report substantially corroborated the police version. The Commission, however, found no merit in the contention. 4.144 As observed above, the police would have been justified in opening fire at deceased Ashok alias Bunti, only if there was a reasonable danger to their life. In other words, the firing by police could have been justified only if Ashok alias Bunti had attacked the police. In the instant case, the absence of gunshot residue in the hand wash of the deceased shows that he had not used firearm to attack the police. Therefore, even if the Commission believed that the police had shot at Ashok alias Bunti from a distant range, their action would not have the sanction of law. Ashok alias Bunti might have been a dreaded criminal, but the police did not have the license to kill him. It ought to have acted within the four corners of law. Considering all circumstances of the case, the Commission did not accept the plea given by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vigilance in his response. The Commission 60 National Human Right Commission Annual Report - 2014-2015