Rajasthan High Court Directs Police Officials To Preserve Viscera Samples Of Unidentified Dead Bodies For DNA Comparison In Man Missing Cases

The Jodhpur Bench of Rajasthan High Court has directed that all concerned police officials must make immediate efforts for the collection of viscera samples from unidentified dead bodies for DNA comparison, as and when required.

A Division Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manoj Kumar Garg noted,
"....we hereby direct that in all cases of recovery of unidentified dead bodies, the police officials concerned, be it the local police or the railway police officials, immediate efforts shall be made to contact the nearest Medical College/CMHO/ Medical Jurist for the purpose of collecting viscera samples from such bodies so that, the same can be preserved for DNA comparison/analysis as and when required."

Referring to the Supreme Court's dictum in Lokniti Foundation v. Union of India & Ors, the Court advised the State of Rajasthan to formulate legislation on DNA profiling of all unidentified dead bodies and missing persons to avoid unfortunate situations wherein the relatives are either unable to confirm the identity or are intentionally avoiding to do so, could be averted if the DNA samples had been preserved from the dead body.

Background

The petitioner, wife of a 72-year old man (Shri Prem Ratan) who was untraceable, approached the Court seeking directions to the police officer to produce the corpus of her husband, who was missing since 2019, suspecting him to be murdered by relatives who were eyeing his property.

The police submitted that the very next day after the alleged disappearance of petitioner's husband, a dead body of an old man resembling him had been found on the railway tracks whose photographs were snapped thereof. However, the petitioner and her son refused to identify the dead body as Prem Ratan. It was also submitted that, unfortunately, DNA samples were not preserved to establish the body's identity.

Advocate Gyan Jyoti Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, urged that by no stretch of imagination could it be accepted that the man who died by the railway locomotive accident would be the husband of the petitioner. Thus, the habeas corpus petition should be continued to take it to the logical end, argued Gupta.

On the other hand, Advocate Farzand Ali, Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General, insisted that a comparison of the photograph of Prem Ratan, appended with the missing person report with the colored photographs of the dead body taken by the GRP officials, made it apparent that the man run over by the train was none other than Prem Ratan.

Findings

In an attempt to settle the competing claims, the Court examined the two photographs to note that the deceased, as seen in the photograph, is an old-aged man with grey hair, a mustache, and a french beard. As per the photograph, which was annexed with the missing person report, Prem Ratan also had similar features. The Court concurred with the observations of the state-respondent and concluded that the missing person expired, as a result of being hit by a locomotive on the railway tracks near Sadulpur/Rajgarh.

It remarked,
"The uncanny resemblance of features between the two sets of photographs is too striking to be overlooked. The mane and facial hair are grey, both in the picture annexed with the Missing Person Report and the pictures of the dead body. The shape of the mustache and beard is identical in both photographs. The fact that Shri Prem Ratan left his house on 04.09.2019 and that the dead body was recovered from a little distance away on the railway tracks on the very next morning also gives rise to an imminent possibility of the dead body being that of Shri Prem Ratan. Thus, we are duly satisfied that the dead body which was found near the railway tracks of Sadulpur was that of Shri Prem Ratan and none else."

The Court then relied on the decision in Horilal v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi (1996), where five-point directions were issued to police officers to be followed in the case of missing persons. These directions included the publication of photographs, inquiry in the neighborhood and all other likely places, inquiry into the ongoing and past conflicts, searching hospitals and mortuaries, announcing rewards.

Advocate Gupta drew the Court's attention to the judgment in Pensiliya v. The Commissioner of Police (2014), urging that similar standard operations/procedures should be adopted in the State of Rajasthan. Noting the directions issued by the Madras High Court in Pensiliya, the Court suggested that the Rajasthan Police may adopt the same with necessary modifications.

Advocate Shreyansh Mardia referred to the Best Practice Principles and Recommendations issued by the Interpol, on which the Court went on to direct The Director General of Police to try to incorporate in the police manual as far as possible.

While disposing of the petition, the bench directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and the Director General of Police, Rajasthan for compliance. The file is kept open for receiving the compliance report and is listed on September 30, 2021.

Title: Urmila Devi v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 

Click Here To Download The Order 

Read The Order