Delhi Court Slams Police For Treating Alleged Murder As Road Accident, Orders Action Against IO, SHO

In a strongly worded order, Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Bharti Beniwal observed that the investigation suffered from grave lapses, resulting in the irreversible loss of crucial evidence and raising serious concerns about the fairness of the probe.

"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," the Court remarked.

Court Questions initial registration under Rash Driving provisions

The case concerns the death of Chandresh alias Monu, who sustained grievous injuries on January 26, 2026, and succumbed to them after remaining hospitalised for 22 days.

According to the complaint, the victim returned home bleeding profusely and immediately informed his family that accused Nagender had assaulted him, chased him in a vehicle and deliberately run him over with the intention to kill him. His family also recorded a video in which the injured repeatedly named the accused while being taken to hospital.

Despite these allegations, the FIR was initially registered under provisions relating to rash and negligent driving.

The Court questioned the very basis of such registration. "The Court finds it difficult to comprehend the basis on which, despite specific allegations of a violent attack involving assault and being run over by a vehicle, the matter was initially treated as one of rash and negligent driving."

Dying Declaration, Forensic Evidence ignored

The Court noted that the victim's video statement had prima facie evidentiary value as a dying declaration but was not accorded due importance during the investigation.

It further observed that an existing forensic opinion from Maulana Azad Medical College had already concluded that one of the victim's injuries was consistent with assault. However, supervisory officers proceeded as though such an expert opinion was still awaited.

The Court also found that blood spatter at the crime scene, blood-stained slippers, forensic photographs and other critical material were neither properly preserved nor scientifically examined.

"No scene-of-crime unit or forensic reconstruction appears to have been meaningfully involved," the Court noted.

Police accepted accused's version without verification

The Court was equally critical of the investigating agency for allegedly accepting the accused's claim that the injuries resulted from an accidental fall involving a vehicle door despite medical records containing no indication of alcohol consumption or any material supporting such a theory.

"The selective reliance on the accused's version, in disregard of the medical record and other contemporaneous evidence, raises serious doubt as to whether the investigation... proceeded on objective assessment."

Commissioner of Police directed to Act 

Holding that the lapses were not merely procedural but struck at the root of the criminal investigation, the Court observed: "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 directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to personally examine the matter and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the IO, SHO and all officers found responsible.

It also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to obtain a medical opinion on whether the injuries suffered by the victim were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The matter has been listed for further proceedings on July 13, by which time the Commissioner has been directed to file a compliance report before the Court.