How police investigation lapses weakened 2017 AIIMS road collision murder case

Serious lapses in the police investigation weakened the prosecution’s attempt to establish that a fatal road collision near AIIMS in September 2017 was a premeditated murder, a Delhi court has observed, acquitting the accused of murder and attempt to murder while convicting him of causing death by rash and negligent driving.

In a strongly worded judgment, Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi of Saket Courts said the investigation’s shortcomings had undermined the case and created doubts that had to benefit the accused.

The case dates back to the intervening night of September 16 and 17, 2017, when a white Ford Fiesta collided with a Royal Enfield motorcycle, an autorickshaw and an Ola taxi on the Ring Road service lane near Gate No. 2 of the AIIMS Apex Trauma Centre. The motorcycle was carrying 21-year-old Gurpreet Singh and his friend Maninder Singh. While Maninder survived, Gurpreet suffered severe head injuries and died at AIIMS on September 20.

The prosecution alleged that the collision followed an altercation outside Safdarjung Hospital, where the accused had argued with a cigarette vendor. Gurpreet and Maninder allegedly intervened, following which the accused threatened them, pursued their motorcycle and deliberately rammed it with his car. The prosecution sought to establish that the collision was an intentional act of vehicular aggression.

However, the court found that while an altercation had taken place, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the collision was deliberate or that the accused had the intention required to sustain charges of murder and attempt to murder.

The judge drew attention to the changing course of the investigation. The initial FIR, registered on September 17, invoked provisions relating to rash driving and causing hurt. The earliest medical record of the injured pillion rider described the incident as a “Road Traffic Accident”. The more serious allegation of an intentional attack emerged subsequently. The court also noted that the cigarette vendor, projected as an eyewitness, was introduced five days after the collision.

The judgment flagged the absence of a daily diary entry recording the injured witness’s supplementary statement and the addition of the attempt-to-murder charge. It also questioned the delayed recording of witnesses and the handling of forensic evidence.

“Ironically, the greatest disservice to Gurpreet’s memory and his family was committed by the flaws in the investigation itself,” the court observed.

It said a prompt, scientifically conducted investigation, with immediate collection of blood samples, preservation of scene evidence, and contemporaneous recording of statements, could have made the prosecution case watertight. Instead, the court observed, the investigation over five days attempted to transform a highway collision into a premeditated, motive-driven murder.

“When a prosecution case is built on exaggerated or improved claims, it creates severe, fatal legal doubts,” the judge observed, adding that such doubts must benefit the accused.

The court nevertheless held that the accused was driving the Ford Fiesta and that the collision caused Gurpreet’s death. It convicted him under Section 304A of the IPC for rash and negligent driving, while acquitting him under Sections 302 and 307.

The accused was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and fined Rs 5 lakh, of which Rs 4.75 lakh was directed to be released as compensation to Gurpreet’s legal heirs. Since he had already spent three years, nine months and 15 days in detention during the trial, the court held that no further custody was necessary.