New Delhi: A court came down heavily on police for serious lapses in the investigation of a 2017 road accident, observing that the probe had done the “greatest disservice” to the deceased and his family as police attempted to turn a collision into a “premeditated murder” case by introducing delayed witnesses, omitting crucial records and suppressing forensic evidence.While convicting the accused of causing death by negligence, additional sessions judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi concluded that “the greatest disservice to Gurpreet Singh’s memory and his family was committed by the flaws in the investigation itself”.”Had the investigating agency treated the incident as a classic, high-speed road traffic accident and conducted a prompt, untainted investigation, collecting immediate blood samples, securing pristine scene evidence, and recording contemporaneous statements, the case… would have been watertight,” the court noted.The court noted that delayed witnesses were introduced, daily diary entries were missing and the forensic report showing 14 mg/100ml alcohol in the deceased’s blood was suppressed.On Sept 17, 2017, Rohit Krishnan Mahanta allegedly got into an altercation with a bidi vendor outside Safdarjung Hospital. The prosecution contended that when Singh and his friend Maninder intervened, Mahanta abused and threatened them. As the two rode away on a motorcycle, he allegedly chased them and rammed his Ford Fiesta into their motorcycle. Singh later died of his injuries.The prosecution charged Mahanta with murder and attempt to murder, alleging that he had “deliberately” used his car as a weapon. The defence, however, maintained that it was a road accident caused by negligent driving and police had “puffed and padded” the case to establish a murder charge. It highlighted that the earliest medical records described the incident as a “road traffic accident”, while delayed witness statements introduced a narrative of prior confrontation.The judge also flagged the absence of daily diary entries recording the addition of the attempt-to-murder charge and questioned how the account of the alleged motive became more elaborate during the investigation.“When a prosecution case is built on exaggerated or improved claims, it creates severe, fatal legal doubts. Under the law, those doubts must benefit the accused, leaving the court with no choice but to acquit,” it recorded.However, he rejected the accused’s complete denial of the initial quarrel, finding the accounts of Maninder and the bidi vendor consistent.The court termed Mahanta’s conduct “highly blameworthy”, finding that his rashness and negligence “far exceeded ordinary inadvertence”. It convicted Mahanta, but ordered his release as he had already spent over three years in detention, exceeding the offence’s maximum two-year sentence.
About The Author
