The Bombay High Court has mandated a renewed investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Disha Salian, former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, citing multiple anomalies in the initial police inquiry. This ruling emerged from the court’s examination of ten critical factors that it believes create “reasonable suspicions” necessitating a fresh probe.
On Wednesday, a bench comprising Justices Sarang V Kotwal and Ranjitsinha R Bhonsale instructed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a First Information Report (FIR) and conduct an independent investigation into Salian’s June 2020 death. The court expressed concern over the Mumbai Police’s handling of the case, indicating that it “raises more questions than it answers.”
The Bombay High Court outlined the ten specific issues that prompted its decision:
1. **Delayed Incident Examination**: Although police arrived at the scene shortly after the incident, the official examination was not conducted until over nine hours later. The court noted that this delay, particularly given indications of potential foul play, raised serious doubts about the initial investigation.
2. **Timing of the Accidental Death Report (ADR)**: The incident occurred at 2:25 AM on June 9, yet the ADR was logged at 3:07 AM. The report referenced statements from Salian’s parents, indicating they had no suspicion, even though her father did not arrive at the hospital until around 4 AM. The court found the inclusion of his statement in the ADR puzzling.
3. **Police Presence Prior to Death Recording**: Surveillance footage revealed police officers at the building between 1 AM and 2:14 AM. The court highlighted that there was no explanation regarding their presence or actions prior to the incident.
4. **Unexplained Blood Evidence**: Two witnesses testified that Salian had fallen face-first, resulting in bleeding. However, the police failed to collect any blood-stained soil and did not document any significant head injuries, aside from a chin injury.
5. **Injury Discrepancies**: The court found it hard to believe that a fall from the 12th floor could result in only a chin injury while sustaining skull and rib fractures, suggesting that expert analysis would be necessary.
6. **Chemical Analysis Findings**: A chemical analyst informed police that a fall from such a height would typically result in more blood at the scene. However, the evidence collected showed less blood, leading to confusion during the inquiry.
7. **Witness Testimony Conflicts**: A witness indicated that Salian had locked herself in a bedroom, which was later forced open. However, the official examination did not indicate any damage to the door or lock, raising further questions.
8. **Forensic Sample Discrepancies**: The postmortem report specified certain swab samples, but the materials sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) contained slide smears instead. While this was attributed to a clerical error, the court flagged this difference as significant.
9. **Seizure Record Concerns**: The court questioned the police’s inquiry into the condition of Salian upon arrival at the hospital, given that they were already aware her clothes had been seized.
10. **Delayed Evidence Collection**: Salian’s mobile phone and laptop, considered crucial evidence, were not collected during the initial investigation on June 9 but were only seized eight days later from a friend.
The Bombay High Court concluded that the combination of these factors warranted the filing of an FIR and a comprehensive investigation to ensure that vital evidence is preserved. However, the court cautioned that its observations should not be interpreted as accusations against any specific individual, emphasizing that the CBI must determine whether sufficient grounds exist for suspicion and whether any wrongdoing occurred.
Journalist Omkar Gokhale, who covers legal matters for The Indian Express, has established a reputation for his in-depth reporting on judicial proceedings and significant legal issues in Maharashtra, providing reliable insights into the workings of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.
