A Delhi court has directed the Commissioner of Police to initiate departmental and disciplinary proceedings against police officials who allegedly treated a case of murder as one of rash and negligent driving, holding that serious lapses in the investigation resulted in the irreversible loss of crucial evidence and could adversely affect the prosecution during trial.
In an order passed on June 29, Judicial Magistrate First Class Bharti Beniwal directed the Commissioner of Police to personally examine the matter and take appropriate disciplinary action against the Investigating Officer (IO), the Station House Officer (SHO) and any other officials found responsible for the deficiencies in the investigation. The Court also sought a compliance report by the next date of hearing.
The order was passed on an application filed by the father of the deceased, Chandresh alias Monu, who sought judicial monitoring of the investigation into an FIR registered at Shahbad Dairy Police Station in Outer Delhi.
According to the complainant, Monu returned home in the early hours of January 26 in an injured condition and informed his family that he had been assaulted by Nagendra, who had allegedly chased him in a vehicle and deliberately run him over. While he was being taken to hospital, his brothers recorded a video in which Monu repeatedly identified Nagendra as the person responsible for the attack. After remaining hospitalised for 22 days, he succumbed to his injuries on February 16.
The Court noted that despite the consistent allegations of a deliberate assault and an intentional act of running over the victim, the police initially registered the FIR only under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which relate to rash and negligent driving and acts endangering human life. It observed that Section 106 of the BNS, dealing with causing death by negligence, was added only after the victim died.
Expressing serious concern over the manner in which the investigation was conducted, the Court observed that there were no foundational allegations suggesting that the incident was a mere road accident. On the contrary, the allegations from the very beginning disclosed a deliberate assault. The Court questioned why the investigating agency treated the case as one involving rash and negligent driving instead of examining the allegations of intentional homicide.
The Court further found that the investigation suffered from multiple procedural and evidentiary lapses. It noted that the Investigating Officer failed to properly coordinate with the treating doctors despite the victim surviving for more than three weeks, did not adequately preserve the crime scene, failed to collect and preserve vital material evidence at the earliest stage of the investigation, and did not give due evidentiary consideration to the video recorded by the victim’s brothers, which prima facie had the character of a dying declaration and was relevant under the law of evidence.
The Court also observed that a forensic opinion obtained from Maulana Azad Medical College had concluded that one of the victim’s injuries was consistent with an assault. However, despite the availability of that medical opinion, the supervisory report ignored the finding and incorrectly proceeded on the basis that an expert opinion was still awaited.
The Magistrate also questioned the decision of the police to invoke Section 105 of the BNS, relating to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. On the basis of the material available on record, the Court observed that the facts raised serious questions as to whether the offence of murder punishable under Section 103 of the BNS ought to have been considered during the investigation.
The Court further criticised the supervisory officers for mechanically relying on reports submitted by subordinate officers instead of independently examining the investigation records and assessing whether the correct penal provisions had been invoked. It held that the issuance of a show-cause notice to the Investigating Officer and calling for an explanation from the SHO were wholly inadequate considering the gravity of the lapses, which had resulted in the irretrievable loss of material evidence and had the potential to seriously prejudice the prosecution case during trial.
Holding that the defects in the investigation were not mere procedural irregularities but fundamental lapses going to the root of the prosecution case, the Court directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Commissioner of Police for personal consideration and appropriate departmental action against all erring officials.
The Court also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to obtain a medical opinion on whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, an issue that could have a bearing on the nature of the offence ultimately made out.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 13.
The case is titled Sonu v. Nagendra. Additional Public Prosecutor Pramod Kumar appeared for the State, while Advocate Tanuj Kumar Sharma represented the complainant.
The post Delhi Court orders disciplinary action against police officers for treating alleged murder as rash driving case appeared first on India Legal.