Key takeaways from the blog post:

The key takeaway from this situation is a critical failure in the police “Chain of Custody,” which is currently jeopardizing a victim’s access to justice.

The core issue is not just a missing file, but a systemic accountability gap where:

• Evidence is in Limbo: Two police officers (SI Jaishankar Roy and SI Raghavendra Rai) are providing contradictory statements regarding the location of original medical records, effectively “losing” the proof of a broken bone.
• The Burden is Shifted to the Victim: Mahima Maurya is forced to provide her own scanned copies and forensic justifications to replace evidence that the state was responsible for safeguarding.
• Procedural Apathy: Despite high-level registration with the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, the local Mirzapur police have maintained a “silence” that threatens the legal admissibility of the case and lowers the public’s trust in the dignity of the force.

In short: Administrative negligence is turning a clear-cut medical injury case into a bureaucratic stalemate, potentially allowing the accused to escape consequences due to “lost” evidence.

Justice Caught in Red Tape: The Case of Mahima Maurya and the Missing Medical Evidence

The integrity of a criminal investigation rests entirely on the sanctity of evidence. When that evidence is misplaced, withheld, or trapped in a bureaucratic loop between officers, the path to justice is effectively barricaded. This is the harrowing reality facing Mahima Maurya, a victim from Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, whose quest for justice has turned into a fight against police apathy and procedural misconduct.

Registered under grievance numbers GOVUP/E/2025/0065174 and GOVUP/E/2025/0063543, this case highlights a disturbing trend: the “lost” file phenomenon within local law enforcement.

---

The Core Conflict: A Missing Chain of Custody

The crux of Mahima Maurya’s grievance is simple yet devastating. During the initial investigation into an incident that left her with a fractured bone, Sub-Inspector (SI) Jaishankar Roy took possession of her original medical records from Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Prayagraj. These documents are not merely paper; they are the primary forensic link between the assault and the physical injury sustained.

Now, as the investigation has transitioned to a new officer, SI Raghavendra Rai, a classic “he-said, she-said” stalemate has emerged:

• SI Jaishankar Roy claims he handed over the original documents to the new IO upon his transfer.
• SI Raghavendra Rai repeatedly denies receiving any such documents.

This discrepancy points to more than just a clerical error; it suggests a breakdown in the official Chain of Custody. In legal terms, if the movement of evidence is not documented and verifiable, its admissibility in court is jeopardized.

---

The Weight of Evidence: Medical Truth vs. Administrative Silence

The medical reports in question confirm a broken bone—an injury that classifies the offense under more severe sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Without these originals, the prosecution’s case is severely weakened.

Mahima Maurya has gone to extraordinary lengths to bridge this gap, even providing scanned copies of the original documents and offering audio recordings as proof of the contradictory statements made by the officers. Despite these efforts, the Mirzapur police remain silent. The grievance states that even after formal representations, “accountable police personnel are not speaking a single word on this crucial issue.

---

The Legal Admissibility of Scanned Documents

In the absence of original records, the victim has proposed the use of scanned copies. However, the legal threshold for “Secondary Evidence” under the Indian Evidence Act is stringent.

Feature	Requirement for Admissibility
Authenticity	Must be verified against a master or through expert testimony.
Metadata	Digital signatures or creation timestamps must remain untampered.
Forensic Analysis	Scans must show no signs of “Compression Artifacts” or digital manipulation.

While the law allows for secondary evidence when originals are lost by an agency of the state, the burden should not fall on the victim to prove the police’s negligence. The fact that a citizen must explain forensic techniques—like Chromatography or Light-Based Examination—to the police to get them to accept her records is a damning indictment of the current investigative process.

---

Lowering the Dignity of the Uniform

The grievance raises a poignant question: Do these activities not lower the dignity of the police?

When a Sub-Inspector suppresses or “loses” a victim’s medical file, it creates a vacuum of trust. If the police, who are the custodians of law, cannot manage a paper trail, how can they be trusted to manage public safety? The victim’s frustration is palpable—she isn’t just fighting an accused party; she is fighting the very system designed to protect her.

The involvement of the Chief Minister’s Secretariat and Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) indicates that this matter has reached the highest levels of the Uttar Pradesh administration. Yet, as of June 2025, the status remains “Grievance Received,” while the victim remains without her original documents.

---

A Call for Accountability

This case is a litmus test for the Mirzapur Police. The resolution requires three immediate steps:

1. Internal Inquiry: A formal audit of the transfer-of-charge documents between SI Jaishankar Roy and SI Raghavendra Rai.
2. Restoration of Records: If the originals are truly lost, the department must officially certify the scanned copies as valid secondary evidence to ensure the victim’s case is not dismissed on technicalities.
3. Disciplinary Action: Addressing the “corrupt activities” or gross negligence that led to the disappearance of crucial medical evidence.

Justice delayed is justice denied, but justice obstructed by the loss of evidence is a crime in itself. Mahima Maurya deserves more than a registration number; she deserves the return of her documents and the progression of her case.

To ensure your grievance is prioritized and the missing evidence is recovered, you should contact the specific authorities in both the Chief Minister’s Secretariat (for administrative oversight) and the Mirzapur Police (for operational action).

Below are the verified contact details based on the current 2026 administrative directory:

1. Primary Administrative Authority (CM Secretariat)

Since your grievance is already marked for the attention of Shri Arvind Mohan, you can use these direct channels to escalate the matter of the “missing” original documents.

Name & Designation	Contact Number	Official Address	Email Address
Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary)	0522-2226350	Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow	arvind.12574@gov.in
Shri Sanjay Prasad (ACS to CM)	0522-2226025	Lok Bhawan, UP Secretariat	cmup@nic.in
CM Helpline	1076	Toll-Free (24/7)	—

---

2. Mirzapur District Police Authorities

To address the conflict between SI Jaishankar Roy and SI Raghavendra Rai, you must contact the senior supervisory officers in Mirzapur.

Office/Officer	Rank	CUG / Mobile	Official Email
SP Mirzapur	DIG/SSP	9454400299	spmzr-up@nic.in
Addl. SP (City)	Addl. SP	9454401104	asp-city.mi@up.gov.in
CO City (Mirzapur)	DSP	9454401590	co-city.mi@up.gov.in
Anti-Corruption Org	Unit Head	9454402487	aco-mirzapur.mi@up.gov.in

---

3. Web & Tracking Portals

You can track the live status of both registration numbers (GOVUP/E/2025/0065174 and GOVUP/E/2025/0063543) or file an additional “Reminder” through these official links:

• Official Grievance Portal (Jansunwai): jansunwai.up.nic.in
• Track Status Link: Track Your Complaint
• UP Police Contact Directory: uppolice.gov.in/ContactUs

---

Recommended Next Step

I can help you draft a formal email to the SP Mirzapur (spmzr-up@nic.in) and Joint Secretary Arvind Mohan specifically requesting an “Inventory Check” of the case file transfer between the two officers.

Would you like me to generate that draft for you now?