Gurgaon: Haryana DGP Ajay Singhal on Monday acknowledged “certain lapses” in the way police handled and cremated an unidentified body that was later established to be that of Delhi real estate professional Yuvraj Singh Manchanda, who was allegedly murdered by his former colleague and her partner. The body was recovered from a water-filled area in the city on Sept 10 and cremated as “unidentified” four days later. Its details were uploaded on ZIPNET only on Sept 16.Singhal’s admission brought to focus what police are expected to do in the 72 hours after an unidentified body is recovered — and what city cops actually did according to their records.“There is a proper SOP that if you find an unidentified body, it cannot be kept for more than three days. We, thus, followed the SOP and cremated it. Yes, there were certain lapses and the court has taken cognisance of them. We will look into those and issue appropriate directions or make amendments, if required,” Singhal said during an event in the city.The DGP, however, did not specify the lapses. But Gurgaon police’s own compliance report to a court hearing the case has raised several questions about the way the body was handled.Yuvraj (31) left his Delhi home on Sept 6 saying he was going for a meeting in Gurgaon. Delhi Police later alleged that he was killed the same night by former colleague Anya Vats and her partner Sanyam Sachdeva. They were arrested in Uttarakhand on Sept 16.Yuvraj’s body, according to cops, was kept in a vehicle for about two days before being dumped near Badshapur on Sept 8. Gurgaon police recovered a decomposed body from a water-filled pit in Sector 70 on Sept 10, but failed to establish its identity.Yuvraj’s family reported him missing at Lajpat Nagar police station on Sept 11. Delhi Police uploaded his photographs and details on ZIPNET on Sept 12. The body that was recovered in Gurgaon was cremated on Sept 14, still unidentified. It was two days later that Gurgaon cops uploaded details of the unidentified body on ZIPNET, which is a joint police database used by several northern states to share information on missing persons and unidentified bodies.So, what should police do when they recover an unidentified body?The cops are expected to photograph the body and scene, record identifying features, collect material and begin efforts to establish identity. Gurgaon police, in its report to the court, said a team inspected the spot where the body was recovered, recorded a video and prepared a rough site plan. The body was shifted to the mortuary and kept for 72 hours.According to rules, police are expected to disseminate all details, including photographs, through the control room and upload them on ZIPNET for cops of neighbouring states to check their records. Gurgaon police said the control room received information about the body at 4.05pm on Sept 10 and a team left for the spot at 4.20pm. But the ZIPNET entry was made only on Sept 16 — two days after police cremated the body.Delhi Police’s missing-person entry for Yuvraj, with his photograph and other details, was already on the system from Sept 12. Gurgaon cops should have known about the missing real estate executive from ZIPNET.Police procedure also provides for a ‘hue and cry’ notice to be put up in newspapers with the photograph of the deceased for wider publicity. The city cops’ compliance report does not record any such notice on paper.Rules also require clothes, ornaments and other articles found on or around an unidentified body to be preserved as potential evidence. They should not be disposed of with the remains.The city cops violated this too. Proceedings at the Delhi court recorded that a watch and kada were later recovered in burnt condition from the cremation site. The court asked, “How can a body be cremated along with the belongings? Is this how you normally operate?”Gurgaon police said inquest proceedings under Section 194 of the BNSS were conducted and an autopsy took place on Sept 14. But its compliance report to the court stated that the autopsy was not videographed. The Delhi court also questioned why the executive magistrate or SDM was not informed for the inquest and why viscera samples were not preserved.More questions arose over the autopsy itself. During the court proceedings, a discrepancy between the autopsy report prepared by Gurgaon authorities and Delhi Police’s investigation findings was flagged. Delhi Police claimed death due to bullet injuries, while the autopsy report attributed the cause of death to asphyxia due to ante-mortem drowning. The court questioned how the two reports could reach such different conclusions. “How can you arrive at such different conclusions,” it asked police.The discrepancy assumes significance because Delhi Police are probing Yuvraj’s death as murder and have alleged that he was shot dead and the body dumped in a drain. However, a health officer in Gurgaon told TOI no bullet wound was found and no bullet was recovered from the body either. He also said the forensic team found no traces of bullet shells from the spotOn Monday, Singhal insisted that the SOP did not permit an unidentified body to be kept beyond three days. This also led to questions on whether identification safeguards were completed during those 72 hours — especially the prompt ZIPNET entry, circulation of details, public notice and preservation of belongings. The court asked Gurgaon police, “How were you to carry out the identification process after the body had been cremated?”The court also observed that the complainant had not only lost her brother but also her right to conduct his last rites.The delay became critical because Yuvraj’s father missing person details were already on ZIPNET before the cremation, while Gurgaon police’s entry came only afterwards.An ASI posted at Badshapur police station was suspended after an internal review into alleged negligence. The Delhi court also sought records covering the recovery of the body, inquest, autopsy, photographs and videos, ZIPNET entries, cremation documents and the chain of custody of belongings and other material.
