Delhi HC transfers 2017 case to CBI, pulls up Delhi Police

The court also directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry into the lapses, if any, by the officers of the Delhi Police with regard to the investigation.

The Delhi High Court has transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) a case related to the 2017 death of a 23-year-old man, while pulling up Delhi Police for a “lackadaisical” and “myopic” investigation.

(Getty Images/iStockphoto)

A bench of justice Tushar Rao Gedela deliveredthe verdict on Thursday, while dealing with a petition by the man’s mother, who had sought transfer of the case from Delhi Police to CBI.In the order, the court observed that authorities had not given any concrete reason for why the death was ruled a suicide and further failed to establish a reason for why the victim would take his own life. The court also directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry into the lapses, if any, by the officers of the Delhi Police with regard to the investigation.

In June 13, 2017, Arnav Duggal, a luxury hotel manager, was found in Shakuntalam Apartments, Dwarka, at the residence a woman he was allegedly in a relationship with. His parents, who had not been able to get in touch with Duggal, were informed at 6:00 pm of his death and, when they reached the incident site, saw their son’s body being taken away. Police officials told them that it was a case of death by suicide and that he had hanged himself.

In the petition, the victim’s mother alleged that the police failed to properly investigate the death of her son since they presumed it was a suicide and not a murder. The presumption, the petition said, relied on the version of events shared by a woman allegedly in a relationship with Duggal, since she was the only person present in the flat when he died.

None of the police officer had seen Duggal hanging from the ceiling fan, the petition added.

Delhi Police argued that the oral and medical evidence clearly pointed to it being a case of death by suicide, adding that it left no room for the authorities to rule it out and otherwise probe the incident as a murder. The lawyer representing Delhi Police, Anmol Sinha, further argued that at least three separate investigations were carried out in the case by different authorities of varying ranks, adding that they were insulated from any external influence and were far from shoddy or negligent.

The lawyer further dismissed the theory of murder as a “figment of imagination”, devoid of any evidence.

However, the court, in its ruling noted that despite three different probes — initially by local police, followed by the Crime Branch and finally a Special Investigation Team (SIT) — they all appeared to simply regurgitate the same narrative.

Although the police concluded the death was a suicide, the judge said they failed to explain the underlying reasons or place on record any evidence supporting this conclusion. The ruling further said, “Though in the present case, the ‘cause of death’ in all probability may be ascertained as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, but what is glaringly lacking is the ‘reason’ for death by suicide.”

“The prosecution has utterly failed to inform this Court or even the Trial Court of any such reason, particularly when there is no material placed on record to indicate that the deceased was under depression or having suicidal tendencies. It is not as if this Court is goading or coaxing the prosecution to consider the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC (Indian Penal Code), but it is only a pointer as to how the investigations or, in other words, the lackadaisical nature in which the investigations have been carried out,” the court said.

The judge further held that police had failed to examine any abetment to his death and the investigation was “myopic”, since it was based solely on his alleged partner’s version.

“Taking note of the aforesaid crucial and material lacunae observed in the investigations carried out not only by the IO but also the Crime Branch and the SIT which appear to have merely parroted the same version, this Court is constrained to observe that the investigations lack bona fide and appear to have been conducted myopically, that too, predicated only on the theory of suicide as stated by MT without applying its investigative or analytical and scientific mind to the circumstances noted in the preceding paragraphs,” the court added.