‘Brutal murder claim turned into accident narrative’: Delhi court raps cops over lapses

The case

The court was hearing an application seeking the monitoring of an investigation into the death of a man, identified as Chandresh. He was grievously injured on January 26 and succumbed to injuries 22 days later after being admitted to a hospital.

The alleged assault, according to the family, took place in the early hours on January 26. Chandresh alias Monu returned to his residence and woke up the family with heavy pounding on the gate. On hearing the commotion, his father came downstairs and found him grievously injured — blood was oozing from his head, hands, and feet.

Before his death, Chandresh had allegedly disclosed to his family that a man he identified as Nagender had assaulted him and run him over with a vehicle with the intention to kill him. His brothers recorded his video statement reiterating these claims and the father filed a complaint.

Police added Section 106 (causing death by negligence) of the BNS to the case.

What the court said

In his order, the Judge said that “… 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. Significantly, there are no foundational allegations in the complaint suggesting a mere accident.”

“The fact that the crime scene was visited, and that blood spatter and blood-stained slippers… were present at the scene, has neither been denied nor adequately addressed… no seizure memo of critical material such as slippers is reflected in the record,” the court said.

The Judge added, “The scene of occurrence was not preserved in accordance with forensic standards. No reconstruction was attempted. Call detail records, mobile location analysis, and scientific corroboration of movements of relevant persons were not promptly undertaken. These are not extraordinary requirements, but elementary steps expected in any investigation involving loss of human life.”

The court also called out the police’s selective reliance on the accused’s claim that the injuries were an accidental outcome of intoxication. “The medicolegal case as well as the post-mortem reports do not indicate, even remotely, the presence of alcohol or any clinical finding suggestive of intoxication… The selective reliance on the accused’s version, in disregard of the medical record and other contemporaneous evidence, raises serious doubt…,” the order read.

Noting that key evidence had been “irretrievably lost”, the court also ordered a compliance report from the Police Commissioner by July 13.

It ordered the Commissioner to “specifically assess the seriousness and cumulative effect of lapses noticed in the investigation”. “… vital material evidence, which was available at the initial stage, has not been properly collected and preserved and now stands irretrievably lost… the record shows that though the IO visited the hospital initially, no sustained effort was made thereafter to record statements of medical personnel or to revisit the hospital records in a structured manner. This omission assumes greater significance as the victim survived for 22 days, thereby providing ample opportunity for proper investigative follow-up,” the court said.

The family of the deceased had placed on record a video recording, where he repeatedly named the accused and described the assault. “The said recording, on its face, bears relevance as a dying declaration and requires careful legal and evidentiary consideration,” the court said in its order.