Spread the love

Keyword – IO, Shoddy, manipulated, occult, DCP 

The court, in his perceptions, expressed that while the genuine executioner is at large, innocents were put to preliminary furthermore being “disgraceful” and “controlled”, the examination appeared to be a “conscious endeavor to defend the real wrongdoer”. 

A court here cleared three people in a 2014 murder case, criticising a Delhi Police investigating officer for putting innocent people on trial and appearing to be “shoddy” and “manipulated” in addition to the investigation appearing to be a “deliberate attempt to safeguard the actual offender” while the real killer remains at large. 

The court also noted that on its face, the case seemed to involve human sacrifice. 

Further Meetings Three persons were detained for the suspected homicide after a beheaded and disfigured body was discovered in the Bawana region of this city in December 2014; Judge Dhirendra Rana was hearing the case. 

The public prosecutor stated that Manjeet, who passed away, and the three individuals who were arrested were drug addicts. The victim, on the day of the incident, had refused to give them his contraband, which infuriated the accused, who then killed him. 

In a new judgment, the adjudicator said, “The shortfall of any booty in the blood test of the denounced people, expired and the recuperated shows from the spot has completely crushed the instance of the indictment that every one of them were consuming stash at the spot and they had a fight on sharing of booty, which brought about the homicide of the departed.” 

The deceased’s head was chopped off and his body was mutilated so that his chest bones were visible, leaving the court to question how the stated weapon of offense—a blade—could have been employed. 

It claimed that the accused had no reason to hide the victim’s head and that the investigating officer (IO) made no attempt to locate it. 

The victim’s heart was missing, and the court noted that his head and chest bones had been severed following his death based on the post-mortem investigation. 

“”Typically, a dead body isn’t found in a particularly mangled condition in a homicide case. The IO disregarded this reality and went on to address the case based on the last-seen hypothesis,” the court said

The location of the incident was reported to have suggested the performance of a religious act or “tantrik” (occult) worship. 

It declared that the prosecution had not proven the case against the three that they were guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and it cleared them of that charge. 

The inquiry appears to be amateurish, contrived, and an intentional attempt to protect the real criminal, and the gathered evidence has not been proven in accordance with the law. The court noted that not only is the investigation conducted by the IO an injustice to the deceased, but it is also an injustice to the accused, who have been on trial since 2015. 

It stated that the IO had tried innocent people even while “the actual killer is still at large”. 

The concerned deputy commissioner of police (DCP) was ordered by the court to take appropriate departmental action against the informant. 

Written by – Sohan Mishra , College name – SOA National Institute of Law , 3rd Semester an intern under legal Vidhiya 


https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/delhi-court-slams-investigating-officer-for-shodd y-probe-2463282-2023-11-15 

https://www.ptinews.com/news/legal/court-acquits-3-in-2014-murder-case-slams-inve stigating-officer-for-shoddy-probe/689181.html 

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/delhi-court-slams-police-for-manip ulating-evidence-in-north-east-delhi-riots-case-acquits-three-accused-persons-101692 381643894.html\

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *