‘Brutal murder was turned into an accident’: Delhi Court raps police, orders action against erring officers
Case Revisited: Mishandled Evidence Sparks Judicial Criticism
Indiadailyupdate.com – A Delhi court has issued a stern rebuke to the Delhi Police for their handling of a case where a murder was improperly classified as a road accident. The judicial Magistrate First Class, Bharti Beniwal, directed disciplinary measures against officers after finding that the victim’s death was not adequately investigated as a deliberate homicide, despite explicit claims of assault and intentional harm.
“The present case raises a disturbing question as to how an allegation of a brutal and deliberate murder was sought to be converted into an accidental narrative by the investigating agency,” remarked Judge Beniwal in a strongly worded order.
Victim’s Final Words Point to Deliberate Attack
Chandresh, also known as Monu, sustained severe injuries and returned home around 2 a.m. on January 26. His father discovered him bleeding heavily from the head, hands, and feet. Before being taken to the hospital, Chandresh allegedly told his family that Nagender had attacked him, pursued him in a vehicle, and intentionally run him over. His brothers also captured a video in which the injured man repeatedly identified the accused and detailed the assault.
Chandresh succumbed to his injuries on February 16 after a 22-day struggle. Despite his repeated assertions, the police initially recorded the incident under provisions for rash and negligent driving. The court questioned the rationale behind this classification, noting that “specific allegations of a violent attack involving assault and being run over by a vehicle” were clearly present.
“The court finds it difficult to comprehend the basis on which the matter was treated as one of rash and negligent driving,” noted the judge, highlighting the lack of foundational evidence for an accidental narrative.
Procedural Lapses in the Investigation
The court highlighted significant procedural errors in the investigation. Investigators failed to secure or document critical evidence at the crime scene, such as blood spatters and blood-stained slippers. No forensic reconstruction was conducted, and the scene-of-crime examination was deemed insufficient. “Despite the presence of blood spatter and physical indicators, no seizure memo of critical material is reflected in the record,” stated the magistrate.
Furthermore, the court criticized the handling of the victim’s video statement. The recording, which the family submitted as a dying declaration, was not given the necessary legal and evidentiary attention. “The said recording, on its face, bears relevance as a dying declaration and required careful legal and evidentiary consideration,” observed the judge.
Forensic Evidence Overlooked by Investigators
Senior police officers had claimed that expert medical opinion was still pending, even though a forensic report from Maulana Azad Medical College had already concluded that one of the victim’s injuries matched signs of assault. The court pointed out that “there is no reference whatsoever to the existing forensic opinion,” raising concerns about the thoroughness of the case review at higher levels.
“More significantly, there is no reference whatsoever to the existing forensic opinion… raising a serious concern regarding whether the case file was independently and fully examined at the supervisory level,” said the court.
The magistrate also criticized the investigators for accepting the accused’s explanation that the injuries resulted from clothes getting entangled in a vehicle door. Medical records contradicted this theory, leading the court to question if the investigation was based on objective analysis or mere acceptance of one version of events.
Call for Improved Investigative Standards
The order underscores the need for better adherence to investigative protocols. The court emphasized that even basic procedures—such as collecting statements from medical professionals and properly documenting the crime scene—were neglected. “No scene-of-crime unit or forensic reconstruction appears to have been meaningfully involved,” the judge added, highlighting the overall inadequacy of the investigation.
