Delhi court orders disciplinary action against police officers who treated murder as rash driving case

A Delhi court recently directed the Commissioner of Police to initiate disciplinary action against erring police officials who sought to portray a brutal murder as a case of rash and negligent driving. [Sonu v. Nagendra]

In its June 29 order, Judicial Magistrate First Class Bharti Beniwal directed the Commissioner of Police to personally examine the matter and take appropriate disciplinary action against the investigating officer (IO), the station house officer (SHO) and any other officers found responsible for the lapses. The Court also sought a compliance report by the next date of hearing.

The Court found that serious investigative lapses had resulted in the loss of crucial evidence, warranting departmental action against the erring officials.

"The record discloses a grave lapse on the part of the IO and the SHO in conducting a prompt and effective investigation. As a result, vital material evidence, which was available at the initial stage, has not been properly collected and preserved and now stands irretrievably lost. Such a lapse is bound to have a serious adverse impact on the prosecution case 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.

The order came on an application filed by the father of the deceased, Chandresh alias Monu, seeking court monitoring of the investigation into the FIR registered at Shahbad Dairy police station in outer Delhi.

According to the complainant, Monu returned home in an injured condition in the early hours of January 26 and told his family that Nagendra had assaulted him, chased him in a vehicle and run him over.

While he was being taken to hospital, his brothers recorded a video in which he repeatedly named Nagendra as his attacker. He succumbed to his injuries on February 16 after remaining hospitalised for 22 days.

The FIR was initially registered under Sections 281 and 125(a) BNS, relating 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 died.

The Court found it difficult to understand why the case was initially treated as one of rash and negligent driving despite consistent allegations of a deliberate assault. There were no foundational allegations suggesting the incident was a mere accident, the Court noted.

It also observed that the investigating officer failed to properly follow up with doctors despite the victim surviving for more than three weeks, failed to give due evidentiary consideration to the video recording that prima facie bore relevance as a dying declaration, and did not adequately preserve the crime scene or collect crucial evidence.

The Court also noted that 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.

It also questioned why the police invoked Section 105 of the BNS (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), observing that the material on record raised serious questions about whether the offence of murder under Section 103 BNS (murder) should instead have been considered.

Further, the Court also went on to criticise the senior supervisory officers for relying on reports forwarded by subordinate officers instead of 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.

Thus, the Court directed that a copy of its order be placed before the Commissioner of Police for 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 matter will next be heard on July 13.

Additional Public Prosecutor Pramod Kumar appeared for the State.

Advocate Tanuj Kumar Sharma appeared for the complainant.

[Read Order]