MP High Court Slams “Dishonest” Police Probe in Murder Acquittal, Orders DGP Inquiry

JABALPUR, MP – In a scathing indictment of investigative practices in Madhya Pradesh, the High Court has overturned the life sentences of a father and son, excoriating the police for a "dishonest and manipulative investigation" riddled with fabrications and "implanted" witnesses. The judgment, which questioned how a deceased man could make phone calls days after his death, not only acquitted the accused but also directed the state's Director General of Police (DGP) to initiate a departmental inquiry into the responsible officers and formulate new guidelines to safeguard citizens from such abuses of the law.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice A.K. Singh, delivered the strongly-worded decision while allowing the appeal of Nain Singh Dhurve and his son, who were convicted in November 2023 by a Mandla district sessions court for the murder of a youth named Rajendra. The prosecution's case was built on the premise that the accused murdered Rajendra over an alleged relationship with their daughter/sister.

However, the High Court's meticulous review of the evidence revealed a narrative so flawed that it prompted the bench to remark with biting sarcasm, “Science has yet not developed so much as to enable a deceased person to connect through mobile phone and talk to the daughter of the accused person.”

The Case of the Post-Mortem Phone Calls

The cornerstone of the High Court's decision was a glaring and scientifically impossible contradiction in the prosecution's own evidence. The postmortem report established Rajendra's date of death, but the call detail records (CDRs)—a crucial piece of electronic evidence—showed that Rajendra's mobile number was used to call the accused's daughter until September 25, 2021, several days after he had supposedly been killed.

This fatal discrepancy, the Court noted, was not a mere procedural lapse but a fundamental flaw that exposed the entire investigation as a sham. “This is a lacuna which reveals how dishonest is the status of investigation in the state of Madhya Pradesh,” the bench observed, highlighting the police's apparent willingness to ignore concrete evidence that contradicted their chosen theory. The judgment suggests a "mechanical" approach by investigators, more focused on hastily filing a chargesheet against a targeted suspect than on conducting a fair and impartial probe to find the actual truth.

The "Implanted" Witness and Ignored Leads

The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of a supposed eyewitness, Chet Singh. He claimed to have been staying with the accused on the night of the incident (September 19, 2021) and alleged that he was awakened by sounds of a beating, which the police concluded was the murder of Rajendra.

The High Court systematically dismantled Chet Singh's credibility, labelling him an “implanted” witness. The Court found it highly suspicious that Chet Singh, who had allegedly left for a job in Kerala shortly after the incident, conveniently reappeared five months later to provide a statement that perfectly aligned with the police narrative. His testimony was deemed concocted and unreliable, a product of fabrication designed to secure a conviction rather than deliver justice.

Further casting doubt on the investigation's integrity, the bench questioned why the police failed to pursue obvious lines of inquiry. Crucially, the girl at the center of the alleged motive was never examined by the police to confirm the existence of the relationship or to determine if her family had any objections to it. Furthermore, none of Rajendra’s own family members had ever mentioned this alleged affair or pointed any suspicion towards the accused. These omissions painted a picture of an investigation driven by a preconceived conclusion, where inconvenient facts and unexplored leads were deliberately ignored.

Systemic Failures and Directives for Reform

Alarmed by the "fabricated" nature of the probe, the High Court went beyond merely acquitting the accused. In a move with potentially far-reaching consequences for policing in the state, the bench issued a series of directives to the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh:

1. Initiate a Departmental Enquiry: An immediate inquiry is to be launched against the Investigating Officer and all other police personnel involved in the "manipulative" investigation.
2. Formulate New Guidelines: The DGP must issue comprehensive guidelines for the proper investigation of crimes. The Court stressed that these guidelines are essential "to prevent misuse of law and protect the life and liberty of innocent citizens."
3. Submit an Action-Taken Report: A detailed report on the inquiry's findings and the actions taken against the errant officers must be submitted to the Court within 30 days.

This judicial intervention underscores a growing concern over the quality of criminal investigations and the need for greater accountability within law enforcement agencies. By mandating systemic reforms, the Court has signaled that such egregious failures will not be tolerated.

Broader Cracks in the Justice System

The issues highlighted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court resonate with broader challenges facing the Indian justice system. In a parallel development, lawyers across 22 districts of Western Uttar Pradesh have announced a complete boycott of judicial work, demanding the establishment of a High Court bench in the region. The Pashchim Uttar Pradesh Uchch Nyayalay Bench Sthapna Kendriya Sangharsh Samiti points out that over 40% of the more than 12 lakh cases pending in the Allahabad High Court originate from their region. "This region is burdened with pendency, yet it lacks accessible judicial infrastructure," said Rajendra Singh Rana, Convenor of the Central Committee. Their protest for accessible justice highlights the structural barriers that can delay or deny legal recourse, a problem exacerbated when the initial investigation itself is flawed.

Meanwhile, in the nation's capital, the Delhi High Court is grappling with the delicate balance between the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression. The Court is examining the Central Government's statutory authority under the Cinematograph Act to order cuts in the film 'Udaipur Files,' which is based on the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. An accused in the ongoing trial has argued that the film's release would prejudice his right to a fair trial under Article 21. A bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya questioned whether the government could go beyond its statutory powers, which a petitioner’s counsel argued do not include acting like a "super-censor board" by directing specific cuts.

Together, these disparate events—a botched murder investigation in Madhya Pradesh, a lawyers' protest for judicial infrastructure in Uttar Pradesh, and a constitutional debate over a film's release in Delhi—paint a complex picture of a justice system under immense pressure. The MP High Court's decisive action against investigative malpractice serves as a powerful reminder that the foundation of justice rests on the integrity of the initial probe, without which the entire edifice of a fair trial and the protection of liberty crumbles.