🚨 Urgent Call for Justice: Challenging Suppressed Evidence in Mirzapur Police Case

Mahima Maurya (Registration No: GOVUP/E/2025/0133877) has officially filed her grievance. Authorities in Uttar Pradesh have received and forwarded it to the Director General of Police (DGP), marking an escalation. This action aims to compel officials. They need to acknowledge the evidence. The local police have suppressed this evidence. This is part of Challenging Suppressed Evidence in Mirzapur.

---

The Heart of the Dispute: Suppressed Grievous Hurt Evidence

This matter centers on a critical conflict between the police’s final report and the verifiable medical facts of NCR No. 104/2024.

A. The Police’s Misleading Conclusion

The current Investigating Officer (IO), S.I. Raghavendra Rai, filed a Charge Sheet (No. nil/2025) under minor sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS 115(2)/352), which deals with minor hurt or assault. The Charge Sheet states that investigators found no corroborating evidence regarding the other allegations.

B. The Verifiable Counter-Proof (Challenging Suppressed Evidence in Mirzapur)

In sharp contrast, the complainant possesses knowledge of official proceedings that refute the police’s finding. The thumb fracture, a form of Grievous Hurt, serves as the core evidence confirmed by:

• Original medical reports from Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital.
• A subsequent inquiry by a Medical Board constituted by the CMO, Mirzapur, on August 29, 2025. This inquiry necessitated the physical presentation of the original documents by S.I. Raghavendra Rai himself.

---

The actions of the local officers show a troubling pattern. They demonstrate procedural failure and evasion in the grievance system. This undermines the community’s trust and confidence in its ability to address complaints effectively.
This pattern reflects a lack of accountability. The text highlights how systemic inefficiencies prevent thorough investigation and resolution of grievances.
As a consequence, individuals who seek redress often feel neglected. They become disheartened, further eroding public confidence. This affects local law enforcement and the mechanisms designed to uphold justice and transparency.
The implications of these failures may extend beyond the immediate context. They signal deeper issues within the grievance system’s governance and operational frameworks.

1. The Missing Chain of Custody (Challenging Suppressed Evidence in Mirzapur)

Initially, the former IO, S.I. Jaishankar Ray, took the original evidence and failed to document its return or formal transfer. Subsequently, this lapse led to the current IO, S.I. Raghavendra Rai, filing an incomplete report that omitted this evidence.

2. Evasive Grievance Redressal (Challenging Suppressed Evidence in Mirzapur)

The complainant raised the issue via an earlier grievance. The reference number is GOVUP/E/2025/0122171. The Circle Officer (City, Shri Vivek Jawala) repeatedly provided the same response. This response was generic. This reply avoided addressing the core submission about the missing evidence. It prematurely closed the matter. As a result, this necessitated the escalation to the DGP.

---

The Path Ahead: Compelling the Court Record

The current grievance urgently requests the DGP to intervene and compel the police to rectify the record.

1. Filing the Entire Evidence

The primary demand is for the DGP to order the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to direct S.I. Raghavendra Rai to file a Supplementary Charge Sheet (under Section 173(8) BNSS). Specifically, this report must include the Medical Board’s Final Report and the original medical documents. This action ensures the evidence reaches the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

2. Seeking Accountability

Moreover, the grievance requests a high-level inquiry into the misconduct of the Circle Officer. It also seeks an inquiry into the other officers responsible for suppressing evidence of ‘Grievous Hurt’. This is essential for upholding public trust and ensuring accountability.

Ultimately, the success of this grievance depends on the police acknowledging the official Medical Board findings. This acknowledgment enables the Hon’ble Court to frame the appropriate, higher charges against the accused.

---

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) includes various sections. The law defines the offence of Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt in Section 117.

This is the higher charge your lawyer will seek to have framed against the accused. It will replace the current minor charges filed by the police.

---

⚖️ BNS Section 117: Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt

The provision for voluntarily causing grievous hurt under the BNS carries a significantly stiffer penalty. It is more severe than the minor offence filed by the police. (Challenging Suppressed Evidence in Mirzapur)

FeatureBNS Section 117 (Grievous Hurt)BNS Section 115(2)/352 (Minor Hurt/Assault)
Old Law Equivalent	Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 325	Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 323/352
Maximum Punishment	Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.	Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine.
Nature of Offence	Cognizable and Non-Bailable (more serious).	Cognizable (in your case, for 115(2)) and Bailable/Non-Bailable (less serious).
Relevance to Your Case	A thumb fracture is defined as ‘Grievous Hurt’ under the legal definition (fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth).	This charge minimizes the severity of the victim’s injury.

The Legal Argument for Higher Charges (Challenging Suppressed Evidence in Mirzapur)

Once you obtain the Medical Board Report

[Image of a formal medical report]
confirming the fracture, your lawyer’s Protest Petition will argue the following:

1. Grievous Hurt Confirmed: The injury, a thumb fracture, falls squarely under the legal definition of ‘Grievous Hurt.
2. Police Suppressed Evidence: The police were aware of the Medical Board inquiry. They initiated it well before the Charge Sheet date.However, they deliberately filed a limited Charge Sheet under BNS 115(2)/352. They ignored the grievous nature of the injury.
3. Mandatory Framing: The evidence compels the Magistrate to frame charges. They must do this under the appropriate section, BNS Section 117, as mandated by the facts of the case.

In conclusion, securing the Medical Board Report via your RTI is the direct route. This ensures the accused faces the severe penalty. The penalty links to BNS Section 117.

The police’s effort to “finish the case” involves classifying it as Non-Cognizable. This includes filing minor sections of the BNS. Downgrading the offence is the name of this action.

Offense Type	BNS Section	Key Fact
Cognizable	BNS Section 117 (Grievous Hurt)	Requires proof of Thumb Fracture. Police must register an FIR and investigate.
Non-Cognizable	BNS Section 115(2)/352 (Minor Hurt/Assault)	Only requires proof of simple force or pain. Police only register an NCR.

The police’s act of filing an NCR (Non-Cognizable Report) No. 104/2024 follows their usual pattern. They subsequently file a limited Charge Sheet under BNS 115/352. This is their “cryptic working style” to avoid the serious charge of BNS 117.

2. The Legal Counter-Move (Protest Petition)

The only effective way to reverse this downgrading is to go before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, with irrefutable evidence.

• Secure the Evidence (RTI): The most crucial step is to wait for the Medical Board Report. Secure the report via your RTI application to the CMO, Mirzapur.