This post analyzes a serious administrative and legal grievance regarding the alleged mishandling of a criminal assault case by the Vindhyachal Police. It highlights the discrepancy between medical evidence and police reporting, as well as critical errors in the application of the new criminal laws (BNS and BNSS).
The Core Issue: Alleged Police Negligence and Judicial Misclassification
The grievance filed by Mahima Maurya (Registration No: GOVUP/E/2025/0000863) centers on a distressing claim: that the local police are intentionally downgrading a cognizable offense (a serious crime requiring immediate arrest/investigation) to a non-cognizable one.
Despite evidence of a bone fracture—which legally qualifies as “Grievous Hurt”—the complainant alleges that the police are submitting “parrot reports” (repetitive, boilerplate responses) to avoid taking appropriate action against the offenders.
Key Evidence: Medical Reports vs. Police Reports
The complainant has provided a clear trail of medical documentation to support the claim of a serious assault:
- Initial Examination: Conducted at the Community Health Centre (CHC) Vindhyachal.
- Subsequent Treatment: Treatment at the reputed Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital (Prayagraj), where a fracture was confirmed and a plaster cast was applied to a finger.
- Contradiction: The police have reportedly ignored these findings, failing to include the victim’s name correctly in the Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) and refusing to register an FIR (First Information Report) despite the gravity of the injuries.
Legal Blunders: Misinterpreting BNS and BNSS
A significant portion of the grievance highlights a technical but critical error made by the Circle Officer (Nagar). The report allegedly confuses the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—which defines crimes—with the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—which defines procedure.
The Statutory Errors Identified:
| Cited Section | Complainant’s Correction | Context |
| Section 115 (BNSS) | Relates to “Attachment of Property” | The police cited this for physical hurt, which is legally incorrect. |
| Section 117 (BNS) | Relates to “Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt” | This is the correct section for a fracture (punishable by up to 7 years). |
| Section 352 (BNSS) | Relates to “Oral Arguments in Court” | The police reportedly misapplied this procedural section to the initial investigation phase. |
Administrative Silence and RTI Non-Compliance
Beyond the physical assault, the complainant highlights a failure in Administrative Transparency:
- RTI Neglect: Multiple Right to Information (RTI) applications regarding the case have allegedly gone unanswered.
- Right to Reason: The complainant asserts that “Right to Reason” is an indispensable part of a sound administrative system. The police have failed to provide a reasoned explanation as to why the medical reports from a government hospital were disregarded.
Current Status and Escalation
- Current Status: The latest grievance (03/01/2025) is currently Received and forwarded to Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) at the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Lucknow.
- Previous Status: A prior grievance was closed on 30/12/2024 with a “Poor” rating from the complainant, who accused the police of adopting a “biased approach” due to potential corruption.
The complainant is now demanding a fresh medical examination under the supervision of senior-rank officers and a rectification of the legal sections applied to the case.
Based on the legal and procedural framework of the Indian justice system, your demands are not only justified—they are grounded in established law. Under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the principles of administrative justice, the police have a mandatory duty to act when a cognizable offense is disclosed.
Here is an analysis of why your demands are legally sound and why the police may be avoiding their duties in this manner.
Why Your Demands Are Legally Justified
1. The Definition of “Grievous Hurt”
Under Section 116 of the BNS (formerly Section 320 of the IPC), a fracture or dislocation of a bone is explicitly classified as “Grievous Hurt.
- Once a fracture is confirmed by a government hospital (Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital), the offense becomes cognizable.
- By law, the police cannot treat a fracture as a simple “non-cognizable” matter.
2. The Mandate of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that if a complaint discloses a cognizable offense, the police must register an FIR. They do not have the discretion to “decide” whether to believe a government medical report or not at the registration stage; the report itself is sufficient grounds to initiate a criminal case.
3. Correction of Legal Blunders
Demanding a correction of the sections (moving from property attachment sections of BNSS back to the hurt sections of BNS) is a demand for basic legal literacy and accuracy in public records. Using the wrong law renders the entire investigation void.
Why Police “Run Away” or Avoid the Matter
There are several systemic and specific reasons why the local police might be stalling or providing “parrot reports”:
- Minimizing Crime Statistics: Often, local stations try to keep the number of registered FIRs low to show a “cleaner” record of crime in their jurisdiction (a practice known as “burking” of crime).
- Corruption or Bias: As you noted in your grievance, if the offenders have local influence, the police may adopt a “cryptic role” to protect them from the harsh penalties of Section 117(2) BNS, which carries up to 7 years in prison.
- The “Non-Cognizable” Escape: By registering a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR), the police shift the burden to you. In an NCR, the police cannot investigate or arrest without a Magistrate’s order, effectively stalling the case.
- Procedural Negligence: The confusion between BNS and BNSS sections suggests a lack of training or a hurried, “copy-paste” approach to grievance disposal, aimed at closing the file rather than solving the problem.
Strategic Next Steps
Since the Joint Secretary now has the grievance, you have a window to push for higher-level intervention:
- Demand a Medical Board: Instead of just a “new test,” demand a Medical Board at a district level to verify the previous reports. This is harder for local police to influence.
- Section 173(3) BNSS (formerly 154(3) CrPC): Since the SHO is not acting, you can send a formal letter via registered post to the Superintendent of Police (SP). If the SP also fails to act, you can approach the Magistrate under Section 175 of BNSS (formerly 156(3) CrPC) to compel the registration of an FIR.
- Note the “Incorrect Record”: Under Section 198 of the BNS, a public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury to any person (or to save a person from punishment) is a punishable offense. You may remind the authorities of this.
This communication reveals a classic case of “Administrative Gaslighting,” where state machinery—both police and medical—appears to be working in tandem to minimize a serious crime.
Below is a structured analysis of the core issues, focusing on the specific legal and medical discrepancies you have raised.
1. The Medical Paradox: “Intentional Negligence”
The crux of the corruption lies in the timeline between the two medical examinations.
- Initial Exam (CHC Vindhyachal): They recorded a “Contused Lacerated Wound” (CLW) on the thenar (base of thumb). Under standard medical protocol, a blunt force injury to a joint/bone area causing a CLW requires a radiological examination (X-ray) to rule out underlying fractures. By not ordering one, the doctor created a “medical vacuum” that the police are now using to claim the injury was “simple.”
- Scientific Evidence (Sapru Hospital): The Digital X-ray (Skiagram) provides objective, mathematical proof of a fracture. Unlike a doctor’s “opinion,” a Skiagram is a physical record that cannot be argued away without accusing a state-run reputed hospital (Sapru) of forgery.
2. The Legal Misclassification: BNS vs. Reality
The police have filed a Charge Sheet under Sections 115(2) and 352 of the BNS. This is a strategic move to benefit the accused:
- The Trap: Section 115(2) BNS refers to Voluntarily Causing Hurt (Simple). This is bailable and carries minor punishment.
- The Law: Because there is a confirmed fracture, the case must be registered under Section 117(2) of the BNS (Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt).
- The Impact: By keeping the sections “weak,” the police ensure the accused do not face arrest and can secure easy bail, effectively neutralizing the victim’s pursuit of justice.
3. Critiquing the Medical Board’s “Unknown Origin” Theory
The Mirzapur Medical Board’s claim that the “origin” of the fracture is unknown is a logical fallacy intended to provide legal “reasonable doubt.
- Site Consistency: The injury recorded on Day 1 (at the thenar) and the fracture found on Day 6 (at the base of the 1st metacarpal) are anatomically identical.
- State’s Failure: The Board is blaming the victim for the lack of a Day 1 X-ray, when it was the State’s medical officer who failed to perform his duty. In legal terms, the State cannot benefit from its own negligence.
4. Analysis of the DGHS Response
The response from the Office of DGHS (New Delhi) is a standard jurisdictional hand-off. Since Health and Police are State subjects, the Central Government (DGHS) will not intervene directly. This places the entire burden back on the Uttar Pradesh State Government and the High Court.
Recommended Strategy for Mahima Maurya
Since the police have already filed a Charge Sheet with “weak” sections, the matter is moving toward the judiciary. You should consider the following:
- Protest Petition: File a formal Protest Petition in the court of the concerned Magistrate. Challenge the Charge Sheet by presenting the Sapru Hospital X-ray and the CHC report. Ask the court to direct the police to add Section 117(2) BNS.
- Writ of Mandamus: If the SP Mirzapur and the CM portal continue to give “parrot reports,” you may approach the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 for a direction to conduct a fair investigation by an independent agency (like the CBCID).
- Human Rights Commission (UPHRC): Follow up on your email (Diary 4672/IN/2024). The UPHRC has the power to summon the Medical Board members and ask them to justify their “unknown origin” conclusion in the face of scientific evidence.
To help you track your cases and communicate with the relevant authorities, here is a consolidated list of official application IDs, contact numbers, emails, and web links based on your grievances.
1. Your Primary Grievance Details
- Current Application ID:
GOVUP/E/2025/0000863 - Previous Application ID:
GOVUP/E/2024/0094314 - UPHRC Diary Number:
4672/IN/2024
2. Key Contact Numbers
| Authority / Office | Contact Number | Purpose |
| CM Helpline | 1076 | Direct reporting to the Chief Minister’s Office. |
| Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) | 0522-2226350 | Concerned officer for your grievance. |
| UP Police Emergency | 112 | For immediate safety or protection needs. |
| DGP Control Room | 0522-2390240 | High-level police intervention. |
| Anti-Corruption (Mirzapur) | 9454402487 | To report police bias/collusion with accused. |
| Health Dept (UP) | 0522-4150500 | For complaints against the Medical Board. |
3. Official Email Addresses
- Joint Secretary (IGRS): arvind.12574@gov.in / jansunwai-up@gov.in
- Chief Minister Office: cmup@nic.in
- DGP Complaint Cell: digcomplaint-up@nic.in
- Anti-Corruption Org: aco@nic.in / aco-mirzapur.mi@up.gov.in
- UP Human Rights: uphrc@nic.in
- Health Dept (UP): janhithealthup@gmail.com
4. Important Web Links
For Grievance Tracking:
- UP IGRS (Jansunwai) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in
- Track Your Complaint Status: jansunwai.up.nic.in/ComplaintTracker
For Police & Legal Matters:
- UP Police Official Site: uppolice.gov.in
- Online FIR Status: Citizen Services – UP Police
Medical & Health Services:
- UP Health Department: up-health.in
- Medical Health Services Tracking (UMANG): web.umang.gov.in
A Note on Transparency
Since the police have submitted a report using the wrong legal sections (BNSS instead of BNS), it is highly recommended that you use the “Send Reminder” feature on the Jansunwai Portal and mention the Application ID GOVUP/E/2025/0000863. This forces the system to re-open the file at a higher level of scrutiny.
Would you like me to draft a concise “Reminder Text” that you can copy and paste into the Jansunwai portal to highlight the specific legal error (Section 115/352 BNSS)?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.