‘Brutal murder was turned into an accident’: Delhi Court raps police, orders action against erring officers

In a scathing indictment of the Delhi Police, a Delhi court has ordered disciplinary proceedings against investigating officers after finding that an alleged murder was improperly investigated as a road accident despite the victim repeatedly naming his attacker before his death.

“The present case raises a disturbing question as to how an allegation of a brutal and deliberate murder was sought to be converted into an accidental narrative by the investigating agency,” Judicial Magistrate First Class Bharti Beniwal observed in a strongly worded order, while directing the Commissioner of Police to personally examine the lapses and take action against the officers responsible.

The order came on an application seeking a court-monitored investigation into an FIR registered at Shahbad Dairy police station.

According to the court, Chandresh alias Monu returned home around 2 am on January 26 with severe injuries. His father found him bleeding profusely from the head, hands and feet. Before being rushed to the hospital, Chandresh allegedly told his family that Nagender had assaulted him, chased him in a vehicle and deliberately run him over with the intention of killing him. His brothers also recorded a video in which the injured man repeatedly named the accused and described the attack. Chandresh died on February 16 after battling his injuries for 22 days.

Despite these allegations, police initially registered the FIR under provisions dealing with rash and negligent driving.

Questioning the basis of that decision, Judge Beniwal remarked, “The court finds it difficult to comprehend the basis on which, despite specific allegations of a violent attack involving assault and being run over by a vehicle, the matter was initially treated as one of rash and negligent driving.” She noted that there were “no foundational allegations” suggesting the incident was merely an accident.

The court found that investigators failed to follow even basic procedures expected in a case involving grievous injuries and a possible homicide. Although the victim remained alive for nearly three weeks, the investigating officer did not adequately record statements of treating doctors or properly follow up with hospital authorities, the order noted.

One of the court's strongest criticisms concerned the handling of the victim's video statement.

“The court notes that the family of the deceased has placed on record a video recording wherein the victim, in an injured condition, repeatedly names the accused and describes the assault. The said recording, on its face, bears relevance as a dying declaration and required careful legal and evidentiary consideration,” the judge observed.

The magistrate also questioned the conduct of senior police officers who informed the court that expert medical opinion was still awaited, despite an existing forensic opinion from Maulana Azad Medical College already concluding that one of the victim's injuries was consistent with assault.

“More significantly, there is no reference whatsoever to the existing forensic opinion... raising a serious concern regarding whether the case file was independently and fully examined at the supervisory level,” the court said.

The order points to several shortcomings in the handling of the crime scene. Blood spatters and blood-stained slippers allegedly found at the spot were neither properly seized nor documented. No forensic reconstruction was carried out and no meaningful crime-scene examination was undertaken.

“Despite the presence of blood spatter and physical indicators at the scene, no seizure memo of critical material is reflected in the record. No forensic photographs of the scene have been properly documented,” the judge noted, adding that “no scene-of-crime unit or forensic reconstruction appears to have been meaningfully involved.”

The court also criticised investigators for accepting the accused's explanation that the injuries were accidental and caused when the victim's clothes became entangled in a vehicle door.

However, the medical evidence did not support that theory.

“The selective reliance on the accused's version, in disregard of the medical record and other contemporaneous evidence, raises serious doubt as to whether the investigation proceeded on objective assessment or mere acceptance of one version,” the court observed.

Judge Beniwal further noted that investigators failed to preserve the crime scene, carry out forensic reconstruction, promptly analyse call detail records and mobile locations, or scientifically corroborate the movements of the accused and other relevant persons.

“These are not extraordinary requirements, but elementary steps expected in any investigation involving loss of human life,” the order said.

Referring to Supreme Court judgments in Dayal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the magistrate observed that trial courts have ample powers to monitor investigations and direct disciplinary action where probes are found to be deliberately defective or conducted in violation of legal standards.

The court held that the lapses had gone far beyond procedural irregularities.

“The record discloses a grave lapse on the part of the IO and the SHO in conducting a prompt and effective investigation. As a result, vital material evidence has not been properly collected and preserved and now stands irretrievably lost,” the judge said.

Calling it “not a mere procedural irregularity but a fundamental defect that goes to the very root of the matter,” the court said the shortcomings were bound to seriously affect the prosecution's case during trial.

Rejecting the view that a show-cause notice to the investigating officer and the SHO was sufficient, the magistrate directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to personally examine the matter and “take appropriate disciplinary action, in accordance with law, against all officers found responsible, including the Investigating Officer and SHO concerned.” A compliance report has been sought before the next hearing on July 13. The court also directed the DCP to obtain a medical opinion on whether the injuries suffered by the victim were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.