Delhi Court Calls for Disciplinary Action Against Police Officers
A Delhi court has mandated the Commissioner of Police to take disciplinary measures against certain police officials for mischaracterizing a murder as a case of rash and negligent driving. This ruling emerged from the case Sonu v. Nagendra, with Judicial Magistrate First Class Bharti Beniwal issuing the order on June 29.
Judicial Findings and Court Order
In her directive, Magistrate Beniwal instructed the Commissioner of Police to personally review the situation and enforce appropriate disciplinary actions against the investigating officer (IO), the station house officer (SHO), and any other officials culpable for investigative failures. The court has requested a compliance report to be submitted by the subsequent hearing date.
Serious Lapses in Police Investigation
The court identified significant investigative deficiencies that led to the loss of crucial evidence, necessitating departmental action against the responsible officials. “The record indicates a severe lapse on the part of the IO and the SHO in executing a prompt and effective investigation. Consequently, vital evidence available at the initial stages was neither properly collected nor preserved and is now lost. This fundamental defect impacts the prosecution’s case during trial,” noted the court.
Case Background
The order was in response to an application filed by Chandresh, alias Monu’s father, seeking judicial oversight over the investigation into the FIR lodged at Shahbad Dairy police station in outer Delhi. According to the complainant, Monu returned home injured in the early hours of January 26, claiming that Nagendra had attacked him, pursued him with a vehicle, and run him over.
Though Monu’s brothers recorded a video capturing him naming Nagendra as his assailant, Monu succumbed to his injuries on February 16 after a 22-day hospitalization. Initially, the FIR was filed under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), related to rash and negligent driving. The court remarked that Section 106 BNS (causing death by negligence) was only added posthumously, despite ongoing accusations of intentional assault and attempted murder.
Court’s Criticism of Police Handling
The court criticized the initial classification of the incident as rash driving, given the consistent claims of deliberate assault. It highlighted the lack of foundational allegations supporting a mere accident narrative. Moreover, the IO’s failure to engage with medical professionals adequately, consider the video evidence as a dying declaration, and preserve the crime scene were notable shortcomings.
The court also pointed out that despite a forensic report from Maulana Azad Medical College indicating one injury was consistent with assault, this was disregarded, pending further expert opinion. Questions were also raised about the invocation of Section 105 BNS (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), suggesting that Section 103 BNS (murder) should have been considered.
Additional Remarks and Future Proceedings
The court chastised senior officers for depending on subordinate reports rather than independently assessing the case. It deemed the issued show-cause notice to the IO and the explanation from the SHO insufficient, given the gravity of the oversight.
More Read
Consequently, the court ordered the Commissioner of Police to review the directive personally. Additionally, the Deputy Commissioner of Police was tasked with obtaining a medical opinion on whether the injuries could naturally cause death. The case is scheduled for further hearing on July 13, with Additional Public Prosecutor Pramod Kumar representing the State and Advocate Tanuj Kumar Sharma representing the complainant.
