This article covers provisions for enquiring and investigating unnatural deaths, detailing legal procedures to determine the cause and ensure justice.

Life is full of uncertainty; the only thing we can be sure of is Death—it comes to all, in one way or the other. Or, as Guy de Maupassant, a French author and playwright, simply puts it in his novel Bel Ami, “The only certainty is death”.

Although, as much as this idea reflects a philosophical truth, the law and its enforcement agencies have a different view of death. When someone dies of natural causes, the legal system steps aside, no questions asked. But when the death seems unnatural or raises even the slightest suspicion, it activates the working of law and its enforcement agencies.

That is when Sections 194 to 196 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Sukraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which correspond to Sections 174 and 176 of the former Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, come into effect.

Legal Provisions which Deal with the Enquiry and Investigation of Cases of Unnatural Death

Section 194 of the BNSS mandates that when a police officer receives information about a suspicious death, they must immediately inform the nearest Executive Magistrate. The officer is required to conduct an inquest at the scene, in the presence of local witnesses, and document the cause of death and any injuries found. Section 194(2) states that the report must be signed and sent to the Magistrate within 24 hours.

The Madras High Court in the case of Manohari & Ors. v. The Dist. Superintendent of Police & Ors. (2018), has held that mere submission of the report by the police to the magistrate is not sufficient to conclude the case.

Further, Section 194(3) provides that in cases which involves: -

a. suicide by a women woman’s death within seven years of marriage.

b. death of a woman in suspicious circumstances within seven years of her marriage in circumstances which raise suspicion about the commission of such an offence by the person who was in the relationship with the victim.

c. request made by the relative of the woman in cases where she has died within seven years of her marriage

d. there is any doubt regarding the cause of death or

e. the police officer, for any other reason, considers it expedient to do so,

the body must be forwarded for medical examination, and empowered Magistrates may conduct inquests. Here Section 194(4) of the Act specifies who can act as an empowered magistrate, which is: -

a) District Magistrate

b) Sub-Divisional Magistrate

c) Any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Govt. or the District Magistrate.

Section 196 of the BNSS provides that in cases involving certain deaths or alleged rape under police or authorised custody, the empowered Magistrate shall hold an inquiry to ascertain the cause of death that can happen either in addition or instead of the police investigation. The Magistrate has all the powers of conducting such an inquiry.

Section 196(2) specifies conditions such as when an inquiry must be held within the jurisdiction where the offence occurred when the person dies or disappears under custody, or in the case of alleged rape; Section 196(3) states that the Magistrate must record evidence and may, if necessary, disinter the body for examination. Relatives should be informed and allowed to attend, where possible. Additionally, the body must be forwarded to a Civil Surgeon or a qualified medical person within 24 hours for examination, unless impracticable, with reasons recorded.

In both Sections 194 and 196, the process of investigating and determining the cause of death is known as an inquest. This simply means a formal inquiry conducted by either a Magistrate or a police officer, which is limited in scope and confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death.

The purpose of the section is to discover whether, in a given case, the death was accidental, suicidal, homicidal or caused by an animal and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. The report which is prepared after the documentation of this information, as stated earlier, is called an inquest report.

Evidentiary Value of Inquest Report

The Supreme Court, in the case of Madhu alias Madhuranatha & Anr., v. State of Karnataka (2014), one of the significant cases for the evidentiary value of the Inquest Report, held that an Inquest Report, or the statements it contains, does not hold the status of substantive evidence, and can only be looked into to test the veracity of the witness of the inquest. [Kalpana Biswas & Ors. vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (2023)] Such a report can also be used for the following purposes:

  • To contradict the officer under section 158/148 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam BSA (Section 155/145 of the Evidence Act).
  • To corroborate their statement under section 160 of BSA (Section 157 of the Evidence Act) (except when recorded by the police).
  • To refresh their memory under section 162 of BSA (Section 159 of the Evidence Act).

Important Judgments

One of the questions that arise in a person's mind while reading about the inquest is the evidentiary value of the report, as it is made with the utmost caution and care. The Supreme Court has made the position clear on the evidentiary value of the inquest report. As held by the court in Rameshwar Dayal and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1978), an inquest report is essentially a document with two distinct parts—one admissible and the other inadmissible. The portion that is based on actual observations made at the scene of the incident is admissible under Section 60 of the Evidence Act.

However, the part that relies on information provided or statements recorded by the police is inadmissible under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 181 BNSS) except for specific limited purposes.

Moreover, the Supreme Court, in the case of Surjan & Others v. State of Rajasthan (1956), clarified that an inquest report cannot override or contradict the evidence provided by a medical expert during court proceedings. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of Debabrata Mondal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal (2002), held that if the contents of an inquest report are written from the statements of witnesses given to the police during the investigation of an offence, they may fall under the purview of Section 162 of the CrPC (Section 181 of BNSS). Consequently, such statements can only be utilised for the limited purpose of contradiction, as outlined in Section 145 of the Evidence Act (Section 148 of BSA).

The Supreme Court in the case of Brahm Swaroop and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010), while relying on the case of Pedda Narayana and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1975), reiterated the fact that discrepancies or inconsistencies in the inquest report cannot be used to discredit the prosecution’s case, provided the overall evidence remains credible and consistent. The court stressed the fact that the main purpose of an inquest report is to find out the cause of death, not to gather detailed evidence or uncover the full truth of what happened.

Conclusion

The provisions, mainly sections 194 and 196 under the BNSS for investigating unnatural deaths, are essential for ensuring justice and transparency.

An inquest aims to find the apparent cause of death and sets the tone for further investigation if necessary. Although it is not considered primary evidence, the inquest report helps confirm facts. Proper documentation, witness participation, and medical examination ensure thorough scrutiny of suspicious deaths. This process helps maintain fairness and accuracy in handling such cases, protecting the interests of both the deceased and the justice system.

References

[1] Manohari & Ors. v. The Dist. Superintendent of Police & Ors., CRL.OP (MD). Nos.15515 of 2018

[2] Madhu alias Madhuranatha & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 419

[3] Rameshwar Dayal and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1558

[4] Surjan & Others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1956 SC 425

[5] Debabrata Mondal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (2003) 1 CALLT 16 (HC)

[6] Brahm Swaroop And Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 280

[7] Pedda Narayana And Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1975 AIR SC 1252

Harshita

Harshita

Next Story