New Delhi, Oct 5 The sister of slain Delhi-based real estate professional Yuvraj Singh Manchanda has moved the Supreme Court, alleging serious lapses by the Gurugram Police in handling his body which was cremated as unidentified days before his family learnt of his death.
A plea filed by Harsimran Manchanda through senior advocate Amit Prasad sought to assist the Supreme Court in framing an effective procedure for dealing wi th missing persons and unidentified bodies, saying the Gurugram Police's failure to upload details of her brother's body on the Zonal Integrated Police Network (ZIPNET) database deprived the family of an opportunity to identify him and perform his last rites.
ZIPNET database is an integrated online platform used by law enforcement agencies to circulate information about missing persons and unidentified bodies.
The development comes after a Delhi court recently ordered an investigation into the possible role of Gurugram Police officials and a doctor in the handling of the body, observing that their involvement in causing disappearance of evidence "cannot be ruled out".
According to Harsimran's application before the apex court, Yuvraj went missing on September 6 after leaving his sisters in Lajpat Nagar to attend a meeting in Gurugram. A missing-person FIR was registered at Lajpat Nagar police station on September 11.
The Gurugram Police had, however, recovered an unidentified male body in the Badshahpur area on September 10 and cremated it on September 14, the application said.
The body was not matched with missing-person records and its particulars, description and photographs were uploaded on ZIPNET only on September 16, two days after the cremation, it alleged.
The Delhi Police subsequently arrested Yuvraj's former colleague Anya Vats and her partner Sanyam Sachdeva from Uttarakhand on September 16. During interrogation, the accused allegedly disclosed that Yuvraj had been shot dead on September 6 and his body disposed of in Badshahpur.
The Delhi court, while ordering a probe into the Gurugram Police officials and the concerned doctor, had noted that the body was kept in a mortuary for 72 hours but the failure to upload its details during that period "effectively defeated" the identification process.
The court had also flagged failure to videograph the post-mortem, inform the executive magistrate and preserve forensic material, besides discrepancies in the post-mortem report, which recorded drowning as the cause of death despite the Delhi Police investigation indicating death by firing.
It had directed the DCP Gurugram to file a report and ordered an investigation under BNS Section 238, which deals with disappearance of evidence of an offence and giving false information.
The Supreme Court has also taken note of the incident in proceedings relating to missing persons and identification of unidentified bodies. It has sought personal affidavits from the commissioners of police of Delhi and Gurugram and asked the Gurugram Police chief to explain why details of the recovered body were not reflected on the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) portal.
Harsimran has said she is not seeking specific relief in the apex court but wants to assist it in putting in place an effective standard operating procedure so that such lapses are not repeated.
