On November 15, a Delhi court acquitted a murder suspect, noting that police officials "threw all procedural norms to the wind" during the investigation.

The Court emphasised that the investigation was not only flawed, but also carried out in a careless manner. According to the order, the police discovered 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.

"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."

Dharmesh Sharma, the principal district and sessions judge, ordered that a copy of the judgement be sent to the Delhi Police Commissioner, who will investigate the matter and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the "erring" officials. The court further 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." "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.

The Court agreed with the defense's argument that, despite the fact that the accused and his family lived at the premises in question, it appeared quite plausible that he had left to go to his wife's native place for post-natal care because they had just had a child.

It referred to one of the witnesses as "extra smart" and said his testimony was given in a "parrot-like manner, most likely on police dictation," and was therefore untrustworthy.

"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. 

Surprisingly, the Court used its suo motu revision powers under Section 397 CrPC to overturn a committal court order declaring the accused's wife a proclaimed offender, calling it a "sham and bogus" exercise.

The Court was hearing a case involving a murder in the national capital in November 2016. The investigation was launched after the deceased's body was discovered inside a room in Vasant Kunj.

To prove its case, the prosecution relied on witness statements and circumstantial evidence. The accused allegedly destroyed evidence after committing the crime and fled the city with his wife.

Case Detail:

State versus Vishnu Bahadur

SC No. 221/2020

CNR No. DLND01­002615­2017