The Madhya Pradesh High Court has strongly reprimanded the police for their conduct during the investigation of a tragic accident in which a three-year-old boy lost his life. The court found that the Investigating Officer (IO) had questioned the complainant and witnesses in a manner that appeared aimed at discrediting their testimonies, rather than conducting a proper investigation. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf termed this approach “unheard of and impermissible in law.” In light of these observations, the court directed the Superintendent of Police to be personally present at the next hearing and stayed the trial proceedings until November 14.
The incident occurred on November 5, 2024, when a couple and their three-year-old son were riding an electric scooter and were struck from behind by a car. The impact caused the family to fall onto the road, with the mother and child landing directly in front of the vehicle. Despite the father’s efforts to alert the driver, the car ran over the mother and child, leading to the death of the boy. The police registered a First Information Report (FIR) and recorded statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) from the complainant, his wife, and several eyewitnesses.
However, the High Court noted that during subsequent questioning, the IO appeared to act with the objective of discrediting the witnesses’ initial statements. The witnesses were asked questions not for clarification or verification but seemingly to highlight discrepancies or challenge the truthfulness of their accounts. All witnesses were made to sign these revised statements, which the court emphasized was an improper method of investigation. The bench underscored that the role of the police is to gather facts and evidence, not to intimidate or manipulate witnesses to cast doubt on their testimonies.
The High Court’s remarks reflect a broader concern about maintaining the integrity of investigations and ensuring that the rights of victims and witnesses are protected. By attempting to undermine witness statements, the IO not only violated procedural norms but also jeopardized the pursuit of justice in a case involving the loss of a young child. The court highlighted that such practices are legally impermissible and run counter to the fundamental principles of criminal investigation.
In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s observations serve as a stern warning to law enforcement authorities about the proper conduct expected during investigations. The case underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that investigations are carried out impartially and professionally, preserving the credibility of witness testimonies and safeguarding the administration of justice. The court’s decision to require the personal presence of the Superintendent of Police and to stay the trial proceedings emphasizes the seriousness with which it views any attempts to discredit or manipulate witness accounts during investigations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.