New Delhi: A Delhi court has pulled up police for allegedly mishandling an investigation into the death of a man in Shahbad Dairy who, before dying, consistently alleged that a person had assaulted him, chased him in a vehicle and deliberately run over him.Despite the victim’s statements, medical evidence and a forensic opinion indicating that he had indeed been brutally attacked, police initially registered the case as one of rash and negligent driving, prompting the court to flag “grave lapses” in the probe.Bharti Beniwal, judicial magistrate (first class) observed, “Even a perusal of the photographs and video depicting the injuries sustained by the deceased, or the post-mortem report, would have afforded a clear indication of the nature and gravity of the assault”.According to the prosecution, Chandresh returned home at 2 am on Jan 26, 2026, in a gravely injured condition and told his family that one Nagendra was responsible for the assault. The court found that the investigating officer did not conduct a sustained follow-up, including recording statements of the doctors who treated Chandresh, though he was alive for over 22 days after the incident.Relying on a video recorded by Chandresh naming the accused, the court deemed “the said recording… bears relevance as a dying declaration and required careful legal and evidentiary consideration”.It further noted that a forensic opinion dated April 22 from Maulana Azad Medical College concluded that Chandresh’s head injury was consistent with the assault, but was ignored. “More significantly, there is no reference whatsoever to the existing forensic opinion in the report submitted by the joint commissioner of police,” the court said.Rejecting police’s claims that the injuries were accidental and caused under the influence of alcohol, the magistrate noted the MLC and post-mortem report didn’t indicate intoxication. The court observed, “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”.Flagging the absence of seizure memos, forensic photographs, scene reconstruction and CDR preservation as “deeply concerning”, the court held that vital evidence had been irretrievably lost. It added, “When matters of such seriousness are brought to the notice of senior supervisory officers… it is expected they would independently examine the case file at least at a preliminary level”.Observing that the lapses had caused “serious prejudice” to the investigation, the court held that a mere show-cause notice to the investigating officer and an explanation from the SHO were inadequate and directed the police commissioner to examine the matter and take appropriate disciplinary action against all officers found responsible.
