Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police- PART XV

Ans. An inquest is an inquiry to find out the apparent cause of death of a person who has died under suspicious circumstances. In England such inquiry is conducted by a coroner or a medical examiner.

Coroner is a public official whose duty is to investigate the cause and circumstances of any death that occurs suddenly, suspiciously or violently. Among other things, the duties of the coroner consisted of holding an inquest upon dead bodies. A coroner's Court in English law is a Common Law Court that holds an inquisition if a person died a violent or unnatural death. (Vide Black's Law Dictionary)

Q.72 What is the purpose of holding an inquest ?

Ans. The main purpose of holding an inquest is to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death, and if so, what is the apparent cause of death. (Vide Section 174 (1) Cr.P.C and –

• Paras 10 and 11 of Podda Narayana v. State of A.P. (1975) 4 SCC 153 = AIR 1975 SC 1252 – U. L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazl Ali - JJ;
• Shakila Khader v. Nausheer Cama (1975) 4 SCC 122 = AIR 1975 SC 1324 – A. Alagiriswami, N. L. Untwalia – JJ;
• Para 31 of George v. State of Kerala (1998) 4 SCC 605 = AIR 1998 SC 1376 – M. K. Mukherjee, S. S. Mohammed Quadri - JJ;
• Para 12 of Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh (2003) 2 SCC 518 = AIR 2003 SC 1164 – G. P. Mathur - JJ;
• Paras 14 and 15 of Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450 = AIR 2006 SC 951 – 3 Judges – K. G. Balakrishnan, Arun Kumar, G. P. Mathur - JJ;
• Para 7 of Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P. (2011) 6 SCC 288 = AIR 2011 SC 280 – P. Sathasivam, Dr. B. S. Chauhan – JJ – case-law discussed ;
• Para 10 of Guiram Mondal v. State of W.B. (2013) 15 SCC 284 = 2013 KHC 4351 (SC) – K. S. Radhakrishnan, Dipak Mishra - JJ.
• Paras 41 and 42 of Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2017) 11 SCC 195 – Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy – JJ.

Q.73 Can the officer-in-charge of the police station (SHO) hold an inquest without the "permission" of the Executive Magistrate ?

Ans. Yes. What Section 174 (1) Cr.P.C. insists is only that before proceeding to hold inquest, the SHO should give intimation to the executive Magistrate. (Vide para 13 of Madhu @ Madhuranatha v. State of Karnataka (2014) 12 SCC 419 = AIR 2014 SC 394 – Dr. B. S. Chauhan, S. A. Bobde - JJ.)

Q.74 Should not the inquest report contain the "incident", "the manner in which the incident took place", "name of the accused" etc. ?

Ans. No. (Vide –

• Para 10 of State of U.P. v. Abdul (1997) 10 SCC 135 = AIR 1997 SC 2512 – M. K. Mukharjee, S. P. Kurdukar - JJ;
• Baleshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar (1997) 7 SCC 219 = AIR 1997 SC 3471 – M. M. Punchhi, V. N. Khare – JJ.
• Para 5 of Shaikh Ayub v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 9 SCC 52 = AIR 1998 SC 1285 – G. T. Nanvati, V. N. Khare - JJ;
• Para 15 of Suresh Rai v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 84 = AIR 2000 SC 2207 – 3 Judges – S. Saghir Ahmad, A. P. Misra, Y. K. Sabharwal - JJ;
• Para 12 of Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh (2003) 2 SCC 518 = AIR 2003 SC 1164 – G. P. Mathur - J;
• Paras 14 and 15 of Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450 = AIR 2006 SC 951 – 3 Judges – K. G. Balakrishnan, Arul Kumar, G. P. Mathur – JJ. (Details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who were the witness to the assault etc. are foreign to the scope of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C………There is no requirement in law to mention details of FIR, names of accused or the names of eye witnesses or the gist of their statements in inquest report nor is the said report required to be signed by any eye-witness.)
• Ravi v. State (2007) 15 SCC 372 – S. B. Sinha, Markandey Katju – JJ.
• Para 34 of Satbir Singh v. State of U.P. (2009) 13 SCC 790 = AIR 2009 SC 2163 – S. B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma - JJ;
• Surendra Pal v. State of U. P. (2010) 9 SCC 309 – B. Sudershan Reddy, S. S. Nijjar – JJ.
• Para 7 of Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P. (2011) 6 SCC 288 = AIR 2011 SC 280 – P. Sathasivam, Dr. B. S. Chauhan - JJ).
• Substitution of the correct name of the informant in the inquest report made subsequently, was justified. (Vide para 11 of State of U.P. v. Ram Swaroop 1988 Supp. SCC 262 = AIR 1988 SC 1028 – 3 Judges – G. L. Oza, B. C. Ray, K. Jagannatha Shetty – JJ.)
• Para 13 of Sheikh Sintha Madhar v. State AIR (2016) 11 SCC 265 = AIR 2016 SC 1844 – Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy – JJ.

Q.75 Will not omission to mention the names of eyw-witnesses in the Inquest Report render the testimony of eye-witnesses in Court, unreliable ?

Ans. No. Non-mention of the names of eye witnesses in the inquest report will not render their testimony unreliable. (Vide –

• Desaji Wadia Sankaiah v. State of A. P. 1988 Supp. 531 = 1988 SCC (Cri.) 879 - M. M. Dutt, K. Jagannatha Shetty;
• Mahendra Rai v. Mithilesh Rai (1997) 10 SCC 605 – M. M. Punchhi, Faizan Uddin – JJ;
• Para 8 of Kujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of M.P. (1991) 3 SCC 627 = AIR 1991 SC 1853 – 3 Judges – A. M. Ahmadi, V. Ramaswami, K. Ramaswami – JJ - (1975) 4 SCC 153 followed.)
• Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450 = AIR 2006 SC 951 – 3 Judges – K. G. Balakrishnan, Arul Kumar, G. P. Mathur – JJ.)
• Para 31 of Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 2 SCC 583 – J. M. Panchal, T. S. Thakur – JJ.

Part 12: Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police-PART XII