'Police Can't Test Veracity Of Witness Statements': MP High Court Slams IO For Trying To Discredit Testimonies, Summons SP

In a tragic accident that led to the death of a 3-year-old boy, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reprimanded the police over the conduct of the IO who instead of conducting an investigation, questioned the complainant and witnesses in a manner trying to discredit their testimonies. 

Directing the Superintendent of Police to be personally present on the next date of hearing, the high court stayed the trial till November 14.

Deeming the Investigating officer's approach to be "unheard of and impermissible in law", the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed; 

"Perusal of documents produced before us show that statements of complainant; his wife and eye witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and after recording the same, there are questions put to the said witnesses by the police officer. The questions prima facie are not in nature of clarification. However, appear to be put to discredit the statements given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. or to bring out certain discrepancies. All the witnesses have been then made to sign the statements. This kind of a conduct and investigation is unheard of and impermissible in law where the investigation officer instead of conducting an investigation, conducts an enquiry and test the veracity of the statements made by the complainant and witnesses".

The accident occurred on November 5, 2024, around 9 pm, when a couple, with their 3-year-old son, was hit from behind by a car while riding their electric scooter. The impact caused the family to fall on the road, with the mother and child landing directly in front of the car. 

The father, who only sustained superficial injuries, managed to get up and allegedly shouted at the car driver, warning that his wife and son were under the car, pleading not to accelerate. Despite his cries, the car, occupied by a couple, ran over his wife and child. The child sustained major injuries and died. 

The police, upon reaching the hospital, prepared an FIR. The next day, the father went to the police station seeking a copy of the FIR. Upon review, he found that the FIR did not mention critical facts- including his warning to the driver and identification of the occupants. 

Aggrieved, the father submitted representations; first to the Station House Officer, then the Chief Superintendent of Police and finally to the Superintendent of Police, but no corrective action was taken. 

Later, when he was summoned by the Trial Court, he went to the police station to collect a certified copy of the chargesheet. Upon receiving it, the father discovered that his statement had been altered, omitting the fact that he saw the driver and warned him not to accelerate. It also failed to mention the presence of the second person in the car. 

The police in their report allegedly mentioned that the car driver, after the impact, stopped briefly but did not notice the child in front of his car. 

The father then approached the high court, where the single judge dismissed his application, directing him to file a plea under Section 156(3) CrPC which provides a mechanism where a magistrate can order police to investigate if it refuses to act on a complaint. The father, then, filed an appeal before the division bench. 

On September 9, the division bench directed the State to produce CCTV footage of the accident, which reportedly supported the father's version. 

Thereafter, on September 24, the division bench ordered the Investigating Officer to appear personally along with the case diary. Upon reviewing the case diary, the division bench noted contradictions in the FIR vs the father's statements and summoned the Superintendent of police to appear. 

During Thursday's hearing, the division bench noted that the investigating officer, while recording the father's statement, had appeared to have questioned him trying to discredit their testimonies.

It thereafter said:

"We are informed that the trial has commenced and matter is listed for hearing today. This is a case where minor child who was aged about three years has lost his life and prima face it appears that investigation has not been done in a manner as known to the criminal procedure law. Accordingly, we direct the Superintendent of Police to be personally present before this Court on the next date of hearing...In the meantime, trial shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing"

The matter is listed on November 14. 

Case Title: SA v State [WA-2426-2025]

For Appellant: Advocates Vishal Vincent Rajendra Daniel, Apoorva Singh Rajput, Avinash Kumar Soni and Mufaddal Saifee

For State: Government Advocate Anubhav Jain

Click here to read/download the Order