New Delhi, Oct 28 A Delhi motor accident claims tribunal has flagged a “cockeyed or motivated investigation” into the death of a 13-year-old boy in an alleged road accident, saying the police officer investigating the case appeared to be a “passive recipient of information” rather than someone verifying the facts.
The tribunal directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the SSP of Bulandshahr in Uttar Pradesh for appropriate action against the investigating officer and others responsible for the lapses, and to improve the quality of road accident investigations.
Presiding officer Vijay Kumar Jha dismissed a compensation claim filed by the parents of Deepesh, who died during treatment after an alleged accident near Aurangabad in Bulandshahr on November 22, 2021.
In its order dated October 22, the tribunal said, “The investigating officer was a passive recipient of the information. The statement of any fact is one thing, and the veracity of the facts so stated in the statement is a completely different facet. Merely recording the statement under Section 161 of CrPC is not the investigation as such.”
The tribunal held that the parents failed to establish that their son’s fatal injuries resulted from an accident involving the motorcycle in question or that it was being driven rashly and negligently.
The parents alleged that Deepesh was returning home on a bicycle carrying a bag of wheat when a motorcycle hit him. They sought Rs 20 lakh in compensation, claiming that Yashpal was driving the motorcycle.
The tribunal found serious inconsistencies in the evidence. The father, who was not an eyewitness, gave contradictory accounts of where he was when he learnt about the accident and who informed him.
The initial complaint, filed seven days after the alleged accident, named Manoj, Yashpal’s brother, as the driver.
The tribunal also questioned the investigating officer’s failure to verify the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses, establish the identity of the driver and examine the basis for identifying the motorcycle.
“A copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned criminal court trying the subject case FIR. A copy be also sent to the worthy senior superintendent of police for appropriate action against the investigating officer and/ or any other person responsible for the cockeyed or motivated investigation,” the judge said.
The deceased’s uncle, projected as an eyewitness, also gave contradictory testimony, while another alleged eyewitness was not examined. The bicycle was not seized, and records from the first hospitals where the boy was allegedly taken were not produced, the judge noted.
The tribunal said the chargesheet and oral testimony failed to establish which vehicle was involved or who was driving it, as it dismissed the claim petition filed by the parents of the deceased.
