Inquest Report under CrPC

When it comes to cases involving unnatural deaths or deaths under suspicious circumstances, the role of an inquest report becomes paramount. Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) provisions, an inquest report is a crucial document that lays the foundation for uncovering the truth behind such incidents.

An inquest report in CrPC is a procedural requirement to establish a comprehensive record of the crime scene, the circumstances leading to the death, and any pertinent evidence associated with the case. This report acts as a crucial stepping stone in the subsequent legal proceedings and aids in determining the course of the investigation.

What is Inquest Report under CrPC?

A criminal investigation involves the pursuit of truth, which encompasses the responsibility to determine the accurate cause of death for any individual. “inquest” refers to a legal or judicial inquiry conducted to establish specific facts.

Section 174 of the CrPC deals with inquest reports. An inquest report is a report prepared by the police or a designated officer in cases involving unnatural deaths or deaths under suspicious circumstances. It is a document that provides preliminary information and details regarding the cause, circumstances, and other relevant factors related to the death.

The primary objective of an inquest report is to investigate the reasons behind an unnatural death. When a crime is perpetrated, it is considered an offence against the State. In situations involving unnatural deaths, the State must determine the cause of death and initiate appropriate actions. Thus, the purpose of an inquest report is to establish factual information that can aid in identifying and punishing the perpetrator.

Contents of Inquest Report

The inquest report generated by the police under Section 174 of the Code is not comprehensive. It merely presents the initial observations regarding the deceased individual. The responsibility for preparing this report lies with the investigating police officer.

The inquest report includes the following details:

• The apparent cause of death.
•  Description of wounds, fractures, bruises, or any other visible signs of injury found on the deceased body.
•  Assessment of how the marks of injury seem to have been inflicted.
•  Identify the weapon or instrument that appears to have been used to cause such injuries.

In the case of Manohari & Ors. vs The Dist. Superintendent of Police & Ors. (2018), the Madras High Court ruled that when dealing with unnatural deaths registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police cannot conclude the case solely by submitting a report to the Executive Magistrate.

Regardless of whether the investigation produces results, it is expected that the police will file a Final Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the appropriate Jurisdictional Magistrate.

Relevant Provisions of Inquest Report under CrPC

Section 174 of the Code grants the police authority to investigate and report cases of unnatural death. The first provision specifies that when an officer-in-charge of a police station or an authorized police officer receives information regarding:

• Suicide
•  Homicide
•  Death caused by an animal
•  Death caused by machinery
•  Death caused by an accident
•  Death under the circumstances raises reasonable suspicion of another person committing an offence.

In such cases, the police officer must promptly inform the nearest Executive Magistrate authorized to conduct inquests. The officer should proceed to where the deceased person’s body is, accompanied by two or more respected residents from the area. The officer will conduct an investigation and prepare a report.

Statements made by witnesses during the investigation are protected under Section 162 of the Code and cannot be used as substantive evidence. They can only be used to support or challenge the credibility of the person making the statement during the trial. However, there are no restrictions on the police officers obtaining witnesses’ signatures on their respective statements.

According to Section 174(2) of the Code, the investigating police officer and other individuals who concur must sign the report. This report is then submitted to the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

Section 174(3) of the Code outlines specific circumstances related to the death of a woman, as added by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. These circumstances include:

• Suicide committed by a woman within seven years of marriage.
•  Reasonable suspicion of an offence committed against a woman who died within seven years of marriage.
•  A request made by a relative of a woman who died within seven years of marriage.
•  Doubt regarding the cause of death.
•  The discretionary decision by the concerned police officer is based on ancillary reasons.

In such situations, the police officer should forward the body for examination to the nearest Civil Surgeon or any qualified medical personnel appointed by the State Government. This action should be taken cautiously, ensuring that the body will not undergo putrefaction during transportation, rendering the examination futile.

Section 174(4) lists the Magistrates authorized to conduct inquests:

• District Magistrate
•  Sub-Divisional Magistrate
•  Any other Executive Magistrate

These Magistrates must be empowered by either the State Government or the District Magistrate to fulfil this role.

Under Section 175 of the Code, the investigating police officer can summon, by written order, two or more individuals mentioned earlier to assist in the investigation. This includes individuals who possess relevant knowledge about the case. 

Those summoned are obligated to attend and truthfully answer all questions except those that may incriminate them or subject them to penalties or forfeiture. If the facts do not disclose a cognizable offence under Section 170 of the Code, these individuals are not required to appear before a Magistrate’s Court.

Why Inquire about Cases of Unnatural Death

When an individual dies a natural death, there is generally no suspicion surrounding the circumstances of their demise. However, in the case of unnatural death, it becomes necessary for the State to investigate and analyze the circumstances surrounding the death. 

The State is responsible for determining the cause of death, and if there are any suspicions regarding the cause, it must take appropriate measures to hold the responsible party accountable. Safeguarding the health and lives of every citizen in the country is an inherent obligation of the State.

Inquest Report and Postmortem Report

The inquest and post-mortem reports should not be considered primary or conclusive evidence. Discrepancies between these reports cannot be deemed fatal or suspicious circumstances that would favour the accused and lead to the dismissal of the prosecution’s case. 

Given that a post-mortem report is conducted by an expert, in instances where there is a discrepancy between the cause of death stated in the inquest report and the post-mortem report, the findings of the expert in the post-mortem report hold more credibility compared to the opinion and findings of a non-expert stated in the inquest report.

Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of Statements

The witness statements recorded during the inquest process are subject to the limitations outlined in Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with some exceptions. Under Section 174 of the CrPC, the recorded statements cannot be considered substantive evidence. 

They can only be used as previous statements to corroborate or contradict the person who made them during the trial. Section 162 of the CrPC allows for contradiction but not corroboration of statements recorded during the investigation stage. However, since an inquest is not an investigation, this restriction does not apply, and the statements can be used for both corroboration and contradiction.

The statements included in an inquest report are admissible only to the extent that they relate to the investigating officer’s direct observation and findings. However, any statement based on hearsay included in the report would be affected by Section 162 of the CrPC. Unless the record is proven unreliable, perfunctory, or dishonest, there is no reason to distrust such statements made in the inquest report.

If witnesses sign the inquest report, the statements made within the report are impacted by Section 162 of the CrPC. They would be inadmissible as evidence unless those witnesses are examined in court during the trial. However, Section 174 of the CrPC does not restrict the police officers’ authority to obtain the signatures of the individuals present during the inquiry and who agreed with the report.

While the contents of the inquest report cannot be considered evidence, they can be investigated to assess the credibility of the witnesses.

Inquest Report of Magistrate

Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 addresses the inquiry conducted by a Magistrate into the cause of death.

In cases falling under the categories mentioned in Section 174(1) of the Code or any other relevant case, the Magistrate empowered to inquire into the cause of death has the authority to do so. The Magistrate can conduct this inquiry instead of or in addition to the investigation carried out by the police officer.

The jurisdictional Magistrate, in the following instances, is authorized to conduct the inquiry:

• When a person has died or gone missing.
•  When a woman has made an allegation of rape.

The inquiry conducted by the Magistrate is supplementary to the inquiry or investigation conducted by the police.

The Magistrate conducting the inquiry is required to record the evidence gathered in connection with the case.

Under Section 176(3) of the Code, if the deceased body has already been buried or cremated, the Magistrate can order the body to be exhumed and examined to determine the cause of death.

Per Section 176(4) of the Code, the Magistrate conducting the inquiry should, whenever possible, inform the deceased person’s relatives and allow them to be present during the inquiry.

Under Section 176(5) of the Code, the Magistrate or the police officer conducting the inquiry or investigation must send the deceased’s body to an accessible civil surgeon or any other qualified medical professional appointed by the State Government for examination. If this is not feasible, the reasons for the inability must be documented in writing.

Conclusion

The scope of an inquest report is inherently limited in its focus. Recently, there has been a discussion to expand this provision to include cases of ‘missing persons’. The provisions primarily pertain to the preliminary investigation or the initial assessment of the deceased’s body. 

Matters such as the specific details of the assault, identification of the accused, or the circumstances surrounding the assault are beyond the purview of Section 174 of the Code. The provision primarily applies to cases of unnatural deaths and dowry deaths. In the latter instances, it outlines specific procedures that the police personnel must follow.