Procedural norms thrown to the wind: Delhi Court acquits murder accused, calls for disciplinary action against erring police

A Delhi court recently acquitted a murder accused while noting that all procedural norms were “thrown to the wind” by the police officials during investigation [State v. Vishnu Bahadur]..Principal District and Sessions Judge Dharmesh Sharma directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Delhi Police Commissioner in order to examine the matter and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the “erring” officials. .The Court underscored that the investigation was not only defective, but was also carried out in a lackadaisical manner. The police found a "convenient way to solve" a blind murder case by "guiding, tutoring and coaxing" witnesses on the point of the accused's presence at the premises on the day of the incident, the order stated."No investigation was done about the background of the deceased and whether whether he was an acquaintance of the accused. No one had seen the deceased visiting the property in question.".The Court was hearing a case related to a murder that took place in the national capital in November 2016. The investigation was set into motion when the body of the deceased was found inside a room in Vasant Kunj.The prosecution relied on statements of witnesses and circumstantial evidence to prove its case. It was alleged that the accused destroyed evidence after committing the crime and fled the city with his wife.The accused, on the other hand, maintained his innocence. .After hearing the parties, the Court noted,"Not only that there are visible cracks in the prosecution story but also that the investigation was not only unfair besides being thoroughly unprofessional thereby throwing all the procedural norms & safeguards to the wind."The Court wondered why the first information report (FIR) was pending for over one-and-a-half months despite a clear case of homicide. Further, the statements of witnesses were not recorded till December 28, 2016. “It is not understandable what were the superior officers of the rank of the ACP (assistant commissioner of police) or the DCP (deputy commissioner of police) were doing all along and how they were supervising or monitoring the investigation that was being conducted by the police officers officers concerned in such a heinous crime,” the order stated..In addition, the prosecution’s version of the accused having fled was stated to be a “sham”, and the issuance of processes under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were termed an “eyewash”. “I must say that the committal court did not properly scrutinise the reports in this regard since it is evident that such processes were sent to to the address of the tenanted premises in question and not to his native place,” the Court added.The Court agreed with the defence’s plea that though the accused and his family resided at the premises in question, it seemed quite plausible that he had left to go to his wife’s native place for her post-natal care, as they had just had a child. It termed one of the witnesses as “extra smart” whose testimony was done in “parrot-like manner probably on dictation of the police” and called it unreliable..The prosecution had relied on the accused’s disclosure and a supplementary statement of his regarding the motive of the crime being the comments of the deceased about “how beautiful” the accused's wife was. “While such disclosure statements are not relevant and cannot be looked into, what clearly looks improbable is that in a room measuring 10x10 feet, the accused committed a ghastly crime of murder in the presence of his wife and children. Anyways, even if such crime might have been possible, at the cost of repetition, there are serious question marks about the manner in which the investigation was carried out,” the order stated. .Interestingly, the Court also exercised its suo motu powers of revision under Section 397 CrPC and quashed an order passed by the committal court, declaring the accused’s wife as a proclaimed offender calling it a “sham and bogus” exercise. .[Read Judgment]