Delhi court slams police for trying to treat a murder case as accident

A Delhi court has directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to initiate disciplinary action against officers allegedly responsible for what it described as grave investigative lapses in a case from Shahbad Dairy, where a case of murder and assault was treated as mere rash and negligent driving, thus attempting to create a narrative of an accident

A Delhi court has directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to initiate disciplinary action against officers allegedly responsible for what it described as grave investigative lapses in a case from Shahbad Dairy, where a case of murder and assault was treated as mere rash and negligent driving, thus attempting to create a narrative of an accident.

(Getty Images/iStockphoto)

In an order passed on June 29, judicial magistrate first class Bharti Beniwal of Rohini Courts observed that the investigation suffered from serious deficiencies from the outset and criticised not only the investigating officer (IO) and the station house officer (SHO) of Shahbad Dairy police station but also senior supervisory officers for failing to intervene.

The court noted that even the deputy commissioner of police (outer north) and joint commissioner of police (northern range) failed to supervise the case even at a preliminary level.

It directed the police commissioner to assess the seriousness and cumulative effect of the lapses and take appropriate departmental action against all officers found responsible. A compliance report has been sought by July 13. “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. Significantly, there are no foundational allegations in the complaint suggesting a mere accident,” it said.

The case relates to the death of Chandresh alias Monu, who was allegedly assaulted and run over by a man identified as Nagender on January 26. According to the complaint, Chandresh returned home grievously injured and told his family that Nagender had attacked him, chased him in a vehicle and deliberately run him over. He remained hospitalised for 22 days before succumbing to his injuries on February 16.

The court noted that while Chandresh was being taken to hospital, his brothers recorded a video in which he repeatedly identified Nagender as his attacker. Despite these allegations, police initially registered the FIR only under provisions relating to rash and negligent driving, invoking the offence of culpable homicide only after Chandresh’s death.

The court said the IO failed to carry out even the most basic investigative steps despite the victim surviving for over three weeks. “The omission assumes greater significance as the victim survived for 22 days, thereby providing ample opportunity for proper investigative follow-up. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for this lapse,” the court observed.

It said statements of key witnesses and treating doctors were not promptly recorded and continuous follow-up was lacking. The judge also criticised the police for failing to properly consider the victim’s recorded statement. “The said recording, on its face, bears relevance as a dying declaration and required careful legal and evidentiary consideration,” the order noted.

The court also found serious shortcomings in the examination of the crime scene. It said crucial evidence, including blood spatter and a blood-stained slipper, was not properly collected or addressed in supervisory reports. “No scene-of-crime unit or forensic reconstruction appears to have been meaningfully involved. The absence of such basic steps in a case involving unnatural death is deeply concerning,” the order said.

The court further pointed to contradictions between the accused’s version and the medical evidence. While Nagender allegedly claimed the deceased was intoxicated and sustained injuries after his clothes became entangled in the vehicle door, the postmortem report did not support this explanation. “Despite this, the investigating agency appears to have accepted the version of the accused without any independent verification or scientific reconciliation with the medical record,” the court observed, adding that the victim’s disclosures consistently pointed to a deliberate assault.

The order also noted that call detail records, mobile location analysis and other scientific evidence were not properly examined, describing these as elementary investigative steps in a homicide probe.

The magistrate was particularly critical of the supervisory role played by senior officers. It observed that the deputy commissioner of police (outer north) and the joint commissioner of police (northern range) failed to independently scrutinise the case despite the material on record.

“Even a perusal of the photographs and video depicting the injuries sustained by the deceased, or the post-mortem report, would have afforded a clear indication of the nature and gravity of the assault,” the court said.

While noting that the joint commissioner had already issued show-cause notices to officers over the failure to initially invoke murder charges, the court said the lapses had caused serious prejudice to the investigation and could adversely affect the prosecution during trial.

“This is not a mere procedural irregularity but a fundamental defect that goes to the very root of the matter and warrants appropriate departmental action against the erring officials,” the court said, while also directing the DCP to obtain a medical opinion on whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.