The matter arose from an application filed by Chandresh, father of the deceased Monu, seeking court monitoring of the investigation into the FIR registered at Shahbad Dairy police station in outer Delhi. According to the application, Monu returned home in the early hours of January 26 with injuries and informed his family that Nagendra had assaulted him, chased him in a vehicle and run him over. While being taken to hospital, his brothers recorded a video in which Monu repeatedly named Nagendra as his attacker. Monu succumbed to his injuries on February 16 after remaining hospitalised for twenty‑two days.
The FIR was initially registered under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertain to rash and negligent driving and acts endangering life. The court noted that despite consistent allegations of deliberate assault and attempted murder, Section 106 BNS (causing death by negligence) was added only after Monu’s death.
Court’s Observations on Investigative Lapses
Judicial Magistrate First Class Bharti Beniwal, in her order dated June 29, found that the investigating officer (IO) and the station house officer (SHO) committed a grave lapse in conducting a prompt and effective investigation. The court observed that vital material evidence available at the initial stage was not properly collected or preserved and has now become irretrievably lost. Such a lapse, the court stated, is bound to have a serious adverse impact on the prosecution case during trial and is not a mere procedural irregularity but a fundamental defect that goes to the very root of the matter.
The court highlighted several specific failures: the IO failed to follow up with doctors despite the victim surviving for more than three weeks; the video recording made by the victim’s brothers, which prima facie bore relevance as a dying declaration, was not given due evidentiary consideration; the crime scene was not adequately preserved and crucial evidence was not collected. Furthermore, although a forensic opinion from Maulana Azad Medical College had concluded that one of the victim’s injuries was consistent with assault, the supervisory report ignored that opinion and proceeded on the basis that expert opinion was still awaited.
The court also expressed difficulty in understanding why the case was initially treated as one of rash and negligent driving when there were no foundational allegations suggesting the incident was a mere accident. It questioned the police’s invocation of Section 105 BNS (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and noted that the material on record raised serious questions as to whether the offence of murder under Section 103 BNS should have been considered instead.
Additionally, the court criticised senior supervisory officers for relying on reports forwarded by subordinate officers without independently examining the case record. It held that a show cause notice to the IO and an explanation from the SHO were inadequate given the gravity of the lapse, which had seriously prejudiced the investigation and had the potential to adversely affect the prosecution case during trial.
Directions Issued by the Court
In view of the aforementioned findings, the court directed the Commissioner of Police to personally examine the matter and take appropriate disciplinary action against the IO, the SHO and any other officers found responsible for the lapses. A copy of the order was to be placed before the Commissioner for his personal consideration. The court also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to obtain a medical opinion on whether the injuries sustained by the victim were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The court further sought a compliance report by the next date of hearing, which is scheduled for July 13. It emphasised that departmental action against the erring officials was warranted to address the fundamental defect in the investigation.
Implications of the Order
The order underscores the judiciary’s expectation that police investigations into allegations of deliberate violence must be conducted with diligence and that any failure to preserve evidence or to consider relevant material will attract disciplinary consequences. By directing the Commissioner of Police to take personal cognisance of the matter, the court aims to ensure accountability at the highest level of police administration. The requirement for a medical opinion on the sufficiency of the injuries to cause death seeks to clarify the legal characterisation of the offence, which may influence the charges framed against the accused.
The matter will now proceed on July 13, when the court will review the compliance report and consider any further steps necessary to ensure a proper investigation and prosecution.