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

Ans. Yes. (Vide Thanedar Singh v. State of M.P. (2002) 1 SCC 487 = AIR 2002 SC 175 – 3 Judges – A. S. Anand – CJI, R. C. Lahoti, P. Venkatarama Reddi – JJ – This is because an inquest is invariably held after the registration of an FIR.

• 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. Jaganatha Shetty – JJ.)
• Omission to mention Crime No. in the inquest report held not material if there was other evidence to show the registration of FIR earlier. (Vide Dr. Krishna Pal v. State of U.P. (1996) 7 SCC 194 = AIR 1996 SC 733 – G. N. Ray, G. T. Nanvati - JJ).
• But merely because the Investigating Officer had not been diligent enough in mentioning the Crime Number in the inquest report, that is no reason to discard the reliable and clinging evidence of eye-witnesses. (Vide Karnel Singh v. State of M. P. (1995) – A. M. Ahmadi – CJI, S. C. Sen - JJ – followed in Dr. Krishna Pal v. State of U. P. (1996) 7 SCC 194 = AIR 1996 SC 733 – G. N. Ray, G. T. Nanavati – JJ.)

Q.82 Since the SHO is doing an official act in the act of preparing the inquest report etc., can he be guilty of causing disappearance of evidence of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC ?

Ans. Yes, if he does it under the colour of his official duty. (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 - In this case, on receiving information about the recovery of dead bodies, the sub inspector, feigning ignorance and flouting all the salutary requirements of Section 174 Cr.P.C., prepared false records regarding the identity of the dead bodies, cause of death and indulged in falsification of data etc.)

Q.83 In spite of a written application to the Police to investigate into the alleged murder of his sister married to one of the accused persons, the Police did not register it as an FIR. From the very beginning the Police were attempting to treat the case as one of suicide. If there are circumstances to justify an investigation into the allegation of suspicious murder, is it permissible for the Court to direct the Police to register the written application as an FIR ?

Ans. Yes. That was what the Supreme Court did in Joint Women's Programme v. State of Rajasthan 1987 Supp. SCC 707 = AIR 1987 SC 2060 – M. P. Thakkar, B. C. Ray - JJ).

Q.84 Are the statements of witnesses given during the inquiry conducted by a police officer under Section 174 Cr.P.C., governed by Section 162 Cr.P.C. ?

Ans. Yes. Inquiry conducted including inquest held by a police officer under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is part of "investigation" within the meaning of Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C. (Vide Razik Ram v. J.S. Chouhan (1975) 4 SCC 769 = AIR 1975 SC 667 – A. Alagiriswami, R. S. Sarkaria - JJ; Narpal Singh v. State of Haryana (1977) 2 SCC 131 = AIR 1977 SC 1066 – P. N. Bhagwati, S. Murtaza Fazl Ali – JJ.)

NOTE BY VRK: Even though every case of unnatural death may not involve an offence, still the proceeding including inquest of a police officer under Section 174 Cr.P.C is "investigation" as indicated by Section 175 Cr.P.C. For attracting the bar under Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C, all that is necessary is an "investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C." Such investigation need not be an investigation into an offence.

Q.85 Has not the SHO the discretion not to send the dead body for post mortem examination in a case where he entertains no doubt regarding the cause of death ?

Part 15: Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police- PART XV