Delhi court asks for probe into Manchanda's autopsy report citing potential ‘destruction of evidence’

Judicial magistrate first class Rahul Jain of Saket courts noted that several norms appeared to have been flouted while disposing off Manchanda’s body.

A Delhi court on Tuesday directed an investigation into the role of officials from the Badshahpur police station in Gurugram and the autopsy surgeon from Gurugram Civil Hospital for potential “destruction of evidence” in the murder case of Delhi resident and real estate professional Yuvraj Singh Manchanda, whose body was found in Gurugram.

Accused Anya Vats and her associate Sanyam Sachdeva were arrested from Uttarakhand. (ANI)

Judicial magistrate first class Rahul Jain of Saket courts, in his order, noted that several norms appeared to have been flouted while disposing off Manchanda’s body, thereby their role in the disappearance of evidence “cannot be ruled out”. “Thus, it is imperative that investigation be conducted on this aspect under section 238 (causing disappearance of evidence of an offence) of BNS,” the court said.

Court flags discrepancies in autopsy

The court was deciding on two applications filed by the victim’s sister. One application was related to seeking judicial monitoring of the probe, while the other sought urgent production and preservation of evidence seized by Gurugram Police. She is represented by senior advocate Amit Prasad.

The court also went on to issue summons to the autopsy surgeon to appear in person along with a written explanation on the next date of hearing to explain the discrepancies in the post-mortem report.

Delayed FIR, cause of death

On September 11, following a complaint by his family, Delhi Police registered a missing-person first information report and uploaded his details, including his photograph, on the inter-state Zonal Integrated Police Network (ZIPNET) portal.

However, the court on Tuesday observed that, although Gurugram police recovered an unidentified male body on September 10, details were uploaded to the inter-state ZIPNET portal only on September 16.

The court noted that Gurugram police had also accepted a written complaint from a local property dealer, Mohit, who claimed Yuvraj had died after he fell in shallow water and that there was “no foul play”, accusing the police of “trying to create evidence to support the theory” that he drowned.

“The abnormality of complaint…brings more suspicion into the role of officials of Badshahpur police station,” it said.

The court further pointed out contradictions between Delhi Police probe and autopsy report prepared by the surgeon.

The court said that, while the two accused told police they had shot the victim twice near the neck, the post-mortem report listed no external injuries and cited the cause of death as “ante-mortem drowning”. The next date of hearing is on October 15.