Few years ago, a Police Officer told me how Police add “alias” against names of few troublemaking petty criminals just to project them as anti-social elements hoping that bail would be refused by courts. It is also a fact that using alias by accused themselves enhances notoriety. However, law enforcing agencies deliberately using alias in first information reports would certainly add notoriety to the accused. Flipside of the coin is violation of fundamental right to reputation which is considered in this write-up
Usage of alias in FIR is often not supported by any documentary evidence such as change of name etc. Many a times, alias name is added to an ordinary person just to make him look notorious. The Karnataka High Court has recently called upon the Police to explain how and under what circumstances ‘alias’ was used against accused in a criminal case.
Wharton’s Law Lexicon 15th Edition defines ‘alias’ as a “second name applied to a person where he has been styled or has styled himself by more names than one”. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edition defends ‘alias’ as a “a false or assumed identity.”
‘Alias’ in crime world. Criminals use aliases,fictitious business names and dummy corporations (corporate shells) to hide their identity, or to impersonate other persons or entities in order to commit fraud. Aliases and fictitious business names used for dummy corporations have become extremely complex. However, usage of alias by persons involved in criminal activities undoubtedly enhances their notoriety. Many who became famous/notorious in Bangalore underworld had weird alias names which served their purpose for decades. Few were Krishnamurthy alias Korangu, Vijay Kumar alias Kavala, Soma alias Deadly Soma (names as shown in FIRs – persons already dead).
The above maybe cases where accused themselves used alias or did not object to usage of alias by their henchmen or Police. However, affixing alias by Police in FIRs without there being any justifiable reasons i.e. accused himself using alias or other documentary evidence such as change of name document, passport etc would be highly objectionable. Branding accused with prefix alias would seriously affect his reputation.
Right to reputation – Fundamental right. The right to one’s reputation is a fundamental right traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, at para 144 the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal position that reputation is an inextricable aspect of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the right to reputation is a constituent of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court relied on the its earlier judgment in Charu Khurana v. Union of India (2015) 1 SCC 192 which held that dignity is the quintessential quality of a personality since it is a highly cherished value and that right to honour, dignity and reputation are the basic constituents of right under Article 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India relied on several judgments, the reference to which is unnecessary here. Suffice it to say individual reputation is part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
There are more than 800 judgments of the Supreme Court where accused name contain alias. It is not clear as to whether these accused really had alias or names added by Police. Few reported judgments are; Pratap Singh alias Pikki v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 7 SCC 424. Mohmed Riyaz alias Goru (Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2012) Tabrez Khan alias Guddu v. State of U.P., (2019) 4 SCC 615. State of H.P. v. Vijay Kumar alias Pappu (2019) 5 SCC 373. Kishan Singh alias Actor v. State of Uttaranchal, (2019) 11 SCC 807. Manish Solanki alias Bansi v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 4 SCC 340. Mohd. Akhtar alias Kari v. State of Bihar, (2019) 2 SCC 513. Thangela Narendra alias Chinnu v. State of Karnataka (2019) 14 SCC 709. Jitendra alias Kalla v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 13 SCC 691. State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar alias Badka (2018) 9 SCC 492. State of Maharashtra v. Bandu alias Daulat(2018) 11 SCC 163. Harpal Singh alias Chhota v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 734. Harpal Singh alias Deputy v. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 734
All these are cases involving heinous crimes. Branding accused with alias appears to be well-established rule for the Police/prosecution.
Conclusion: Examined from this angle andhaving regard to the notoriety it has gained in crime world, prefixing ‘alias’ to accused by Police in FIRs certainly tarnish reputation. This is so especially when accused has no such recorded pseudo name. In their eagerness to brand accused as a notorious criminal or anti-social element, if the Police were to prefix, it would destroy reputation of the accused for all time to come since FIRs are public documents. Even if the case foisted on accused ends in acquittal or quashed by higher courts, the damage done is irreversible. It is absolutely necessary for the Police to verify antecedents of accused before affixing alias. Even if the accused discloses his name with alias, Police must verify veracity of such a claim since few want to gain notoriety by proclaiming to have alias names. Self-branding is equally dangerous. Hence the courts at the very first instance, when accused is produced, must call upon the Police to explain reason/need for usage of alias. This will prevent violation of accused’s fundamental right to reputation protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
S.Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal, Bangalore. Member, Karnataka State Bar Council. raj@dakshalegal.com
Daksha Legal 