Dharamsala college student’s death: Court raps police over ‘slipshod’ probe

In a detailed order issued on Tuesday while deciding anticipatory bail applications filed by an assistant professor and two others, the Sessions’ Court observed that although the police have taken cognisance of two video clips — one allegedly implicating the assistant professor and another said to absolve him — no conclusive material has been collected to establish their authenticity and veracity.

“There is nothing on record to show on whose phone the videos were captured, nor when and where they were recorded,” the court observed.

According to the deceased student’s father, one of the videos was allegedly recorded on the phone of an attendant, while another clip, made by the deceased at home, does not implicate the assistant professor. The court held that the origin and circumstances of the video recordings must first be ascertained before their evidentiary value can be assessed alongside other material collected by the prosecution.

Significantly, the court noted that the investigation had not centred on the video clips, despite them being the genesis of the FIR. “There is nothing on record to remotely show who made the video clipping, when and where it was made and the authenticity and veracity of the same. It requires a deeper probe, to say the least. To this extent, the investigation seems to be slipshod and perfunctory,” the order stated.

The court further observed that if the videos are found to contain incriminating material, more stringent provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) could be invoked. At present, the accused have been booked under Sections 75, 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Ragging) Act, 2009, all of which carry punishment of less than seven years.

Referring to Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the court noted that in offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, arrest is an exception rather than the rule. The prosecution is required to issue a mandatory notice, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar (2014), now codified under the new criminal law framework.

The status report dated February 13, submitted by the prosecution indicated that no convincing or credible evidence had so far emerged against the accused persons.

However, the court clarified that if further investigation into the video evidence reveals graver offences, the investigating agency would be at liberty to add more serious charges as per law. It expressed hope that the probe would now address the overlooked aspects with due seriousness, especially as a young life had been lost.

The Sessions’ Court also observed that if the incident is found to have resulted from insensitivity or unwarranted conduct on the part of the teacher, “onerous as his responsibility was”, he must be dealt with sternly under stricter provisions of the BNS and not merely under the sections presently invoked.