Back
Sixteen years, vanished videos, and a question mark over India's apex human rights body
The has delivered a searing indictment of institutional lethargy and possible cover-ups in a case that has languished since 2010. Hon'ble Atul Sreedharan and Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, JJ., in a sharply worded order have directed the to retrieve missing videography of the scene of occurrence and post-mortem examination that could hold the key to establishing whether Nahar Singh's death was suicide or murder staged by police.
The Lockup That Defied Logic
Nahar Singh, a 40% physically handicapped man, was found hanging in the urinal portion of the lock-up at Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri on . Police claimed he used his own leather belt to end his life. The Court immediately spotted the improbability: a lock-up inside a police station is an open, constantly supervised area with iron bars and personnel always present. A handicapped person achieving a successful hanging there, unnoticed, strains credulity.
The post-mortem report added to the suspicion. While the external injuries showed a knot mark behind the right ear, forensic logic suggested a belt would have left a buckle impression instead. Internally, the hyoid bone was intact but the III, IV, and V tracheal rings were fractured. Such fractures, the Court observed, are far more consistent with strangulation than simple hanging, particularly when the victim's feet were nearly touching the ground.
How Closed Its Eyes
The father of the deceased had approached the . In its proceedings, accepted the police narrative that Nahar Singh had a romantic relationship which ended in rejection and that he committed suicide in frustration. Crucially, did not record the statement of a single independent witness, the girl involved, her parents, neighbours, or even the policemen on duty that night.
As the Bench observed:
"If this is all that thewas required to do and close the case ofpurely on the version given by the police which is an... calls into question the very existence of the."
The Court also noted that 's report never mentioned having examined any videography or photographs before reaching its conclusion.
Police Evasion Over Sixteen Years
Multiple orders passed by the Court in January, February, March and April 2026 directed production of the videography. Successive police officers either claimed the material had been sent to or filed affidavits that avoided direct answers. The present SHO's belated 2026 communication claiming the footage was handed over to lacked dates, reference numbers, or any proof of actual despatch.
The Bench concluded:
"This case discloses institutional failures... the procedural delay of sixteen years... has given an opportunity to the police and the State to cover its tracks in a manner that the truth remains obscured."
Three distinct institutions, the Court held, stand exposed: the High Court itself for not pursuing the matter with urgency initially, the police for its reluctance to produce evidence, and for its passive acceptance of the police story.
Steps In
Faced with persistent non-production of crucial electronic evidence, the Court turned to the 's . It has been given sixty days to secure the videographic records without the necessity of registering an FIR and to produce the material before the Court on the next date, .
The petitioning organisation, , has been asked to implead the as respondent number seven.
What Lies Ahead
The order does not decide guilt or innocence. It insists that before any final view can be taken, the visual evidence captured at the time of occurrence and post-mortem must be examined by the Court. Whether the footage still exists, whether it was ever sent to , or whether it has been quietly destroyed will now be the subject of scrutiny.
In an era where custodial deaths continue to be reported in disturbing numbers, the 's refusal to let this 2010 fade into oblivion serves as a stark reminder that evidence preservation and institutional accountability cannot be optional.
