In a tragic case involving the death of a three-year-old boy, the Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf pulled up the police for the questionable conduct of the Investigating Officer (IO), who, instead of investigating the case, questioned the complainant and witnesses in a manner aimed at discrediting their testimonies.

Expressing strong disapproval, the bench stayed the trial till November 14 and directed the Superintendent of Police (SP) to appear personally before the Court on the next date of hearing.

Facts:

The incident took place on November 5, 2024, at around 9 p.m., when a couple and their three-year-old son were struck from behind by a car while riding an electric scooter. The collision threw all three to the ground, with the mother and child landing in front of the vehicle. The father, who sustained minor injuries, managed to get up and allegedly shouted to the driver that his wife and son were trapped beneath the car. However, despite his desperate cries for help, the car—reportedly occupied by another couple—moved forward, running over them. The child later succumbed to his injuries.

An FIR was registered after the police reached the hospital. However, upon obtaining a copy, the father discovered that crucial details including his warning to the driver and identification of the occupants had been omitted. His repeated representations to the Station House Officer, Chief Superintendent of Police, and Superintendent of Police yielded no response.

Later, when he collected a certified copy of the chargesheet, he was shocked to find that his statement had been altered. References to his warning to the driver and the presence of another person in the car were missing. The police version suggested that the driver stopped briefly after the collision but did not notice the child in front of the vehicle.

The father approached the High Court, but a single-judge bench dismissed his plea, advising him to file a petition under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which allows a magistrate to direct police investigation. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the Division Bench.

On September 9, the Bench ordered the State to produce CCTV footage of the incident, which reportedly supported the father’s version. Subsequently, on September 24, the Court directed the Investigating Officer to appear along with the case diary. Upon examining the records, the Bench noted glaring contradictions between the FIR and the complainant’s statements, leading to the summoning of the Superintendent of Police.

The High Court expressed strong disapproval of the Investigating Officer’s approach, noting that he appeared to cross-examine witnesses instead of investigating the case.

“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 bench stated.

The Bench observed that the IO’s conduct went against established norms of criminal procedure and appeared to be an attempt to undermine the credibility of the witnesses, rather than uncover the truth.

Taking note of the discrepancies in the investigation, the Court expressed serious concern over the fairness of the proceedings and halted the trial.

“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 facie 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.” the court observed.

The Court stayed the trial proceedings and listed the matter on November 14, 2025, and directed the personal appearance of the Superintendent of Police on that date.

Case Details: SA v State, WA No. 2426 of 2025

Advocate for the Petitioner: Vishal Vincent Rajendra Daniel

Advocate for the Respondent: Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for respondents/State. Nitin Dubey - Advocate for respondent No.8.