DIG suppressed facts in murder case, says Madhya Pradesh HC, penalises him ₹5 lakh

The petitioner, Manvendra Singh Gurjar, an accused in a murder case in Datia district, filed an application in 2018 challenging the prosecution’s claims about the date and location of the incident.

Gurjar, also known as Ramu, sought call detail records in the case to be preserved in an effort to show that the witnesses and the deceased were not present at the purported site of the incident. Awasthi, who was Datia Superintendent of Police at the time of the incident, then told the court that when this application was being decided, he had already been transferred and had no authority to produce the records.

The High Court noted that on September 7, 2018, the trial court had ordered that call details and locations of specified mobile numbers and SIM be preserved and that these details were emailed to Awasthi on September 17, 2018. Despite an application for compliance, the investigating agency took a “false stand” the records could not be preserved, the court observed.

“Awasthi, the then SP Datia, had deliberately suppressed and withheld the information which was directed to be preserved by the Trial Court,” the High Court observed. “Since Awasthi could not give any explanation for not forwarding the said information to the concerning police station or for not sending a letter to the concerning police station…, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him that either the information was withheld by him to facilitate the accused persons to pray for an adverse inference against the prosecution agency with regard to presence of their witnesses on the spot or to facilitate the complainant by hiding actual location of mobile numbers of various witnesses and the deceased.”

The court also observed that Awasthi “has tried to violate the fundamental rights of free and fair investigation as well as free and fair trial of at least one of the parties”.

The court also called on the state’s Director General of Police to “decide as to whether such types of persons are to be retained in the police department or not”.

“Since the conduct of Mayank Awasthi, at present posted as DIG, Bhopal, is much below the standard which is expected from a senior police officer and is contrary to the law of the land, accordingly, this court… sought reply from Awasthi as to why departmental enquiry should not be directed to be initiated for violating the order,” the court observed.

Awasthi is currently serving as DIG (Intelligence) in Bhopal. He has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs 5 lakh as compensation before the Principal Registrar within one month, failing which he will face proceedings to recover the amount and also a separate case for Contempt of Court. Furthermore, the court has also directed the police to file a chargesheet against Awasthi and for a certified copy of the order to reflect in his service record.

“It is really a shocking state of affairs where the police has not risen up to the minimum level of duties expected from them,” the court observed.