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

Ans. Yes. Section 174 (1) Cr.P.C says "…..the nearest Executive Magistrate shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood, shall make an investigation……". The word "there" in Section 174 (1) suggests that the inquest should be held at the spot where the dead body is found. (Vide Kodali Puranchandra Rao v. Public Prosecutor, A.P. (1975) 2 SCC 570 = AIR 1975 SC 1925 – 3 Judges – Y. V. Chandrachud, P. N. Bhagwati, R. S. Sarkaria - JJ.)

Q.77 Is it correct to say that the FIR loses its authenticity if it is lodged after the inquest is held ?

Ans. Yes. (Vide para 17 of Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das v. State of Assam (2010) 10 SCC 374 = AIR 2010 SC 3300 – Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, H. L. Dattu – JJ.) Also contains a discussion as to what all should an inquest report contain.

NOTE BY VRK: Since the holding of an inquest is part of "investigation", it should ordinarily be a step taken after the formal registration of a crime.

Q.78 Will interpolation in the inquest report render the prosecution case doubtful ?

Ans. Yes. A serious interpolation made in the inquest report with a view to fit in with a new case concocted was found to render the prosecution case doubtful. (Vide para 7 of State of Haryana v. Shibu @ Shiv Narain (2008) 11 SCC 377 = AIR 2009 Supp. SC 609 – 3 Judges – Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam, Aftab Alam – JJ).

Q.79 Do not discrepancy, over-writing, omission or contradiction in the inquest report, render it liable to be eschewed from consideration ?

Ans.

• Not always, unless the above aspects have been put to the author of the inquest report and his explanation elicited. (Vide 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.)
• Where the case of the prosecution is strong and substantiated by reliable evidence, lapses including over writing in the inquest report, may not be relevant. (Vide Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 12 SCC 490 = 2014 Cri.L.J. 446 (SC) – Ranjana Prakash Desai, Madan B. Lokur - JJ.
• Where the discrepancy in the date of lodging the FIR mentioned in the inquest report was not put to the author of the inquest report, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. (Vide 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.)
• Cutting and overwriting the name of the informant in the inquest report, held not fatal to the prosecution. (Vide para 10 of Bimla Devi v. Rajesh Singh (2016) 15 SCC 448 – Pinaki Chandra Ghose, R. K. Agrawal – JJ.)

Q.80 Is it open for the defence to falsify the prosecution version by relying on a document produced by the prosecution but not exhibited or formally proved by the prosecution ?

Part 14: Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police- PART XIV

Part 13: Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police- PART XIII