In a significant development in a high-profile case, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud raised questions about the medical report concerning the injury of the accused. The inquiry occurred during a Supreme Court hearing where Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented differing accounts regarding the handling of evidence and the investigation process.

CJI Chandrachud’s inquiry focused on the details of the medical report, which is considered a critical piece of evidence in the ongoing case. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the accused, informed the court that the medical report was part of the case diary, implying that it had been documented and preserved as part of the official investigation. “This is part of the case diary,” Sibal stated, emphasizing that the evidence had been properly recorded and maintained.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the prosecution, offered a different perspective. Mehta apprised the Supreme Court that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) only entered the investigation on the fifth day after the incident. He further alleged that by the time the CBI took charge, critical evidence had been altered, and the investigating agency was unaware of the existence of such a medical report. “CBI entered the investigation on the 5th day, everything was altered, and the probe agency did not know there was such a report,” Mehta claimed, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the evidence.

Sibal was quick to counter Mehta’s assertion, insisting that the evidence had not been tampered with. He argued that the entire process, including the collection and documentation of evidence, was videographed, leaving no room for alterations. “Everything is videographed, not altered,” Sibal contended, underscoring the transparency of the investigation process.

Despite Sibal’s defense, Solicitor General Mehta further highlighted the timing of the First Information Report (FIR) and the videography. He informed the court that the FIR was registered at 11:45 PM, after the cremation of the victim’s body. He added that the videography was conducted only after senior doctors and colleagues of the victim insisted on it, indicating that even they suspected possible discrepancies. “FIR was registered at 11:45 after the cremation of the body and videography was done after the senior doctors and colleagues of the victim insisted for it, which means they also suspected something,” Mehta argued, suggesting that the circumstances surrounding the investigation were unusual and warranted closer scrutiny.

The exchange between the legal representatives highlighted the complexities and challenges involved in the case, particularly concerning the preservation and authenticity of evidence. As the Supreme Court continues to hear arguments, the questions raised by CJI Chandrachud, and the conflicting narratives presented by Sibal and Mehta, underscore the need for a thorough and impartial investigation to ensure that justice is served.

This case, which has garnered significant public attention, serves as a reminder of the critical importance of due process and the meticulous handling of evidence in the pursuit of justice. The Supreme Court’s deliberations in the coming days will likely play a pivotal role in determining the course of the investigation and the eventual outcome of the case.