TREATMENT AND INVESTIGATION OF UNNATURAL

DEATHS UNDER SECTION 174 OF THE CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 AN ANALYSIS

Submitted by
Tanushree Arvind
BA0130073

Project Submitted to
Miss K. Gowri
Associate Professor of Law

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

(A State University established by Act No. 9 of 2012)
NavalurKuttapattu, Srirangam (TK), Tiruchirappalli 620009.

SEPTEMBER 2016

DECLARATION
I, Tanushree Arvind, hereby declare that the project entitled Treatment and Investigation of
Unnatural Deaths under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 submitted to the
Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli is a bona fide and independent work done by
me under the supervision and guidance of Professor of Criminal Procedure Code, Ms. K. Gowri,
Faculty, The Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The outcome of this project work has been possible only with the help, support, inspiration and
academic assistance from various people. Firstly, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to
Ms. K. Gowri for having guided me through this research project. I would also like to thank my
friends and family having made the completion of this project possible.

CONTENTS
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 174
DETAILS OF INQUEST REPORT
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF INQUEST REPORT
INQUEST REPORT vs. POST MORTEM REPORT
CONCLUSION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
1) Murari v State of U.P, 1998 All Cr. C 469
2) Guiram Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2013 (2) crimes 324 (327) SC
3) Podda Narayana & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1252
4) State v. Satish Shetty, 2008 Kan LJ 50 (Kant) (DB)
5) Shakila Khader v. Nausher Gama, AIR 1975 SC 1324
6) Khujji v. State of Madhya Pradhesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853
7) Baldeo v. State of U.P 2004 Cr LJ 2686
8) Kodali Puranachandra Rao v. The Public Prosecutor, State of A.P, AIR 1975 SC 1925
9) Surinder Pal Singh v. State 1982 Punj LR (D.S) 156

Statutes:
1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2) Indian Penal Code, 1860

ABSTRACT
5

Section 174 of the Code lays down the scope of an inquest report. An inquest is an inquiry into
the cause of some unnatural death. In cases of unnatural deaths, like deaths caused by an animal,
machinery, accident or if the death raises reasonable suspicion, a detailed inquiry is necessary to
ascertain the true cause and manner of death. This necessitates an inquest. The very objective of
an inquest by the police is very limited in its approach. The objective of this procedural
requirement is to merely ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or
whether an unnatural death has taken place.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
1. What is the scope and ambit of Section 174?
2. How has the judiciary interpreted Section 174?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
To answer the above questions, the researcher has undertaken a doctrinal method of research.
Heavy reliance has been placed on secondary sources of data like judgments and case
commentaries. Primary sources include the statutes only.

INTRODUCTION

The law of crimes requires a case to be built by the prosecution which puts the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. A number of procedural safeguards, therefore, are inbuilt in
the run-up to the trial to ensure that none of the steps leading to determination of guilt of the
accused are hushed up and rather the State machinery works in an efficient manner. Preparation
of Inquest Reports is provided for under the Code of Criminal Procedure as a record of crime
which even though not a substantive piece of evidence, is an important basis for determining the
commission of the offence in as much as improper filing of inquest report can weaken the case of
the prosecution.
An inquest report is typically filed pursuant to Section 174 of the Code which envisages the
investigation procedure to be followed in cases of unnatural deaths. Cases of unnatural deaths are
further subject to scrutiny by the Police authorities as well as the Magistrate. According to
Section 176, the nearest magistrate or any magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the
cause of death in addition to the investigation by a police officer.
The object of this paper is to understand the scope and ambit of Section 174 through various
judgments.

OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 174

7

Section 174 of the Code lays down the scope of an inquest report. An inquest is an inquiry into
the cause of some unnatural death. Whenever a death occurs, it is necessary to establish the cause
of the death. If the death occurred sue to natural circumstances like heart attack, no further
investigation is required. However, in cases of unnatural deaths, like deaths caused by an animal,
machinery, accident or if the death raises reasonable suspicion, a detailed inquiry is necessary to
ascertain the true cause and manner of death. This necessitates an inquest.
Broadly, there are four different kinds of inquest:
a) Police inquest (Section 174)
b)

The Coroner's inquest (conducted by a coroner, Not followed in India now)

c)

The Magistrate's inquest (Section 176)

d)

The Medical Examiner system (Prevalent in the USA)

Two types of inquests are held in India. Section 174 contemplates an inquest conducted by
police authorities. Interestingly, a third type of inquest known as the coroners inquest was also
conducted in India in certain parts of Mumbai and Kolkata but was later abolished in the year
1999. The coroners inquest was legacy of the British raj which originated in England at the time
of King Richard I.1 A creation of necessity, the post of custodes placitorum coronae or the
keeper of pleas of the crown was introduced in England since the King was often away on wars
and an officer was necessary to look into the law and order situation. Eventually, the title of
custodes placitorum coronae underwent huge changes both literally and in terms of the powers
exercised by him. Pursuant to this, the Coroners Act was enacted in the Presidency towns of
Bombay and Kolkata in the year 1871. The Act also envisaged Coroners Courts. The Coroners
inquest was considered to be superior to a police inquest. The office of the coroner was
dispensed with since it resulted in unnecessary duplication of investigation.
1 See Aggrawal, Anil, Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and ToxicologyVolume 2, NUMBER 1, January - June
2001.

The police inquest is held under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Commonly
referred to as Cr.P.c.). In India, normally the inquest is conducted by a police officer, not below
the rank of a head constable. A police officer conducting an inquest is known as an investigating
officer. Whenever a suspicious death occurs anywhere, the information reaches the local police
officer first of all. He immediately informs the Executive Magistrate of the area and then
proceeds to the place where the body is lying. The idea of informing the Executive Magistrate is
that in certain cases, the Magistrate may himself want to conduct the inquest (his inquest being
fairer and superior to that of the police inquest). There are certain specific cases in which only
the Magistrate shall hold an inquest (as mentioned under the relevant heading), but the
Magistrate reserves the right to conduct inquest in any other case which he deems fit. If there is
no order from the Magistrate to the contrary, the Police officer conducts an inquiry into the cause
of death in the presence of two or more respectable witnesses of the locality. These witnesses are
known as panchas, panch witnesses or panchayatdars. He also looks at the body for evidence of
any injury, poisoning, etc. Based on his findings after viewing the body, as well as information
received from the witnesses, he prepares a report on the probable cause of death, as judged by
him. This report is called the panchnama or the inquest report. The inquest report, on an average
consists of about 10 papers, but it may be as long as 50 papers or as short as just 3 papers. It all
varies from case to case. The usual papers that the report contains are:(i)
(ii)

Brief facts of the case

Statements and opinions of two or more relatives or neighbors or friends of the

(iii)
(iv)

deceased
A sketch of the scene where the body is lying
A form filled up by the police officer himself, giving details of injuries as visualized

(v)

by him
Any treatment records, if the person had been receiving some treatment for some

(vi)

disease or injury prior to his death

A copy of the MLC, if this was made at the time the patient was brought to the

(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)

hospital
Statement of the deceased prior to his death regarding his cause of death
Suicide note of the deceased if this was found
A copy of the First Information Report (FIR), if this had been lodged with the police
Any other relevant paper (for instance, the railway ticket found in the deceased's
wallet, if the body was found on a platform. It may indicate where he was traveling
from and where to).
9

After preparing the inquest report, the police officer may come to one of the two conclusions;
either there has been a foul play or there has been none. In either case, his subsequent action
would be different.
The very objective of an inquest by the police is very limited in its approach. The objective of
this procedural requirement is to merely ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious
circumstances or whether an unnatural death has taken place. There is no other purpose to this
except this. 2
The language of this section is clear and unambiguous. A police officer acting under Section 174
performs a very limited role to the extent of mere ascertainment of the cause of an unnatural
death whether accidental, suicidal, homicidal or caused by an animal or machinery. Neither in
practice nor in law is it required of a police officer to provide details of overt acts such as how
the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted
or who are the witnesses of the assault. 3
The inquest report filed under Section 174 has several ramifications on the conduct of the trial,
acceptance of evidence and admittance of witnesses. Very often, defense counsels have cited
improper filing of the inquest report as grounds for dispensing with witnesses or discrediting
evidence. But the apex courts have constantly held that an inquest report is purely a procedural
requirement with limited scope. While the contents of an inquest report can be used to discredit a
witness, it does not hold enough legality to the prosecution out of court. 4
The principle conceived in Section 174 was very succinctly put forth by a Division Bench of the
Supreme Court in the case of Podda Narayana & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh5.

2 Murari v State of U.P, 1998 All Cr. C 469.

3 Guiram Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2013 (2) crimes 324 (327) SC.
4 Podda Narayana & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1252.
5 Id.
10

In this case, three of the appellants were charged with the crime of murder under section 302
read with section 34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The fourth appellant was charged
under section 302 read with section 149 and section 364 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
The first accused borrowed money from the deceased and as the money was not repaid the
deceased filed a suit against him. Angered by being drawn into litigation, A.1 to A.3 and three
others came upon the deceased in a jeep driven by A. 4, and A. 1 to A. 3 getting down from the
jeep stabbed the deceased with daggers and while the deceased was falling down carried him
away in the jeep. The companion of the deceased at the time when the occurrence took place
gave the first information to the police. Three days after the incident the dead body was
recovered, and inquest was held.
The Additional Sessions Court had acquitted the accused while the High Court held them to be
guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. One of the points of on which the
Supreme Court upheld the conviction was on the erroneous understanding of the scope of
Section 174 by the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court had relied on improper filing of inquest
report as one of the grounds for acquittal, stating that details of overt acts committed by the
accused have not been mentioned in the relevant columns of the inquest report. The Supreme
Court opined that such an interpretation is legally erroneous. It was opined that a statement
recorded by the policeduring the investigation is not at all admissible and the proper procedure
is to confront the witnesses with the contradictions when they are examined and then ask the
Investigating Officer regarding those contradictions. Furthermore, proceedings for inquest under
s. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have a very limited scope.
The Apex Court also concurred the rationale of the High Court in regard to the point that mere
omissions in an inquest report are not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court.
It clarified the position in law with respect to section Section 174 which is cited in a plethora of
cases as follows:
A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the object or the proceedings under s.174 is
merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural
death and if so what isthe apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to
11

bow the deceased was assaulted or

who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was

assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under s. 174.
Neither in these circumstances, therefore, in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to
have mentioned these details in the inquest report.
Sohonis Code of Criminal Procedure summarizes the object of Section 174 as follows:
The whole purpose of preparing an inquest report under Section 174 is to investigate into and
draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds as may be found on the
body of the deceased and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument such wounds
appear to have been inflicted. For the purpose of holding an inquest it is neither necessary nor
obligatory on the part of the investigating officer to in investigate into and ascertain the persons
responsible for the death.
However, the Supreme Court has ensured that filing of an inquest report is not dispensed with as
mere procedural impediment. In the case of State v. Satish Shetty6, it was held by the Apex Court
that an inquest report is a document of vital importance which must be filed promptly since it
must be sent to the doctor when the body is sent for post mortem examination. Since the inquest
report contains details as to circumstances under which the death occurred, it aids the doctor in
ascertaining the exact cause of death.
CUSTODIAL DEATHS:
In cases of custodial death, Section 176 of the Code empowers any Magistrate so empowered, to
hold an enquiry into the cause of death either instead of or in addition to the investigation
conducted by a police officer. When a Magistrate undertakes such an inquest, he shall have all
the powers in conducting the inquest which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence.
In the case of Ismat Sara vs. State of Karnataka7, the question before the Karnataka High Court
was whether a District Magistrate is a Court since it conducts an inquiry and collects evidence
pursuant to the powers conferred by it under sections 174 and 176. The Court was also faced
6 2008 Kan LJ 50 (Kant) (DB).
7 1982 CriLJ 1076.
12

with the question as to whether a decision of the Executive Magistrate under Section 176
constitutes a judgment.
The Court ultimately held that, even though the provisions of Section 176 read with Section
174, Cr.P.C. were not strictly applicable to the inquiry made by the District Magistrate, yet
having regard to the fact that the District Magistrate had proceeded to hold inquiry invoking the
powers under Section 176, Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that in holding inquiry, he was acting as a
Court. Section 176, Cr.P.C. Though empowers an Executive Magistrate to hold an inquiry into
the cause of dealth of a person and during such inquiry, the Executive Magistrate is legally
empowered to record the evidence of the witnesses, but that Section does not say that should
happen after finishing the inquiry. So, neither the findings nor the report was a judgment. In the
present case, while the scope of the inquiry was confined to the ascertaining into the cause of the
death of the person, what the District Magistrate was directed to do was to hold an inquiry into
the cause of death of the person and make a report to the Government. That being so, it is clear
that the District Magistrate was not acting as a Court.
Recently, the Delhi Legislative Assembly passed a bill amending Section 176 of the Code.

Magisterial probe is ordered only in cases of custodial death, homicide, suicide or death of a
woman. Through the amendment to section 176(1) of the Code, the government wants to widen
its scope to cover any other cases of suspicious disappearance, rapes in police custody,
suspicious death. The move has been criticized by many to be derogatory and one that challenges
the authority of the Parliament. The Bill is yet to receive the assent of the President.

8 PTI, Delhi Assembly Passes Bill Proposing Amendments in Code of Criminal Procedure, available at:
http://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/delhi-assembly-passes-bill-proposing-amendments-in-code-of-criminalprocedure-1246775, visited on: 27th September, 2016.
13

DETAILS OF INQUEST REPORT

An inquest report need not contain names of the assailants or names of the witnesses. Similarly,
names of the accused need not be mentioned in the report. Mere omission of name of the accused
from an inquest report does not lead to the inference that he was not present at the time of
commission of the offence.

When the names of accused persons are not mentioned in the

inquest report, plea that they were falsely implicated cannot be raised before the Supreme
Court.10
The report is primarily intended at finding out the nature of the injuries and the apparent cause of
death while the doctor who conducts the post mortem examination is the person who studies the
body and prepares a report from a medico-legal standpoint through scientific examination.
The relevancy of a witness statement is in no way diminished because his/her name was not
mentioned in the Inquest report. Absence of the name of the eye-witness in the inquest report is
not ground to refuse to rely on his testimony.11 Absence of name of the witness is not sufficient
proof to establish that the witness was not an eye-witness.
Through a multitude of judgements, the Supreme Court has held that the preparation of an
inquest report is not medico-legal in nature. It has been held, if the injuries on the body of the
deceased are not described in detail it is not a circumstance against the prosecution. The
Investigation Officer is not a medical expert.12
Examination of witnesses during inquest proceedings is not necessary and is not mandated by
law. An inquest proceeding is not to be confounded with the proceeding instituted under Section
9 Supra note 4.
10 Shakila Khader v. Nausher Gama, AIR 1975 SC 1324.
11 Khujji v. State of Madhya Pradhesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853.
12 Baldeo v. State of U.P 2004 Cr LJ 2686.
14

161 and 162 of the Code. If at all witnesses were examined during inquest proceedings, the
statements recorded must be made available to the accused. Further, these statements need not be
verbatim.
An Inquest Report must contain only details of the apparent cause of death and the injuries that
may be found on the body of the accused. All other details are unnecessary, the presence or
absence of them does not diminish the case of the Prosecution. An Inquest Report, to a large
extent, is only the opinion of the Investigation Officer without much investigation.

15

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF AN INQUEST REPORT

In the face of medical evidence, a report of injuries and apparent cause of death by an
investigating officer does not prevail. Since the Inquest Report only contains a hypothesis and an
opinion as to how the death could have occurred, the technical opinion given by a medical expert
always prevails.
However, if the Report contains events that the Investigation Officer saw with his own eyes, that
can be construed as corroborative evidence.
The Statement made by an Investigating Officer in an inquest report is not a stement made by
any witness before the police during investigation but is a record of what the Investigating
Officer observed and found. Such evidence is direct primary evidence and in the eyes of the law,
the best evidence unless it has been proved to be unreliable, perfunctory or dishonest. The
contents of a Panchanama are not substantive. Only what has been stated by witnesses in the
witness box constitutes as substantive evidence. Panchanama can be used to corroborate witness
testimonies.
Inquest report and Post-mortem report cannot be termed to be substantive evidence. Any
discrepancy occurring between them is not fatal to the case. They do not constitute evidence by
themselves. However, they can be used to test the veracity of statements of witnesses.
Further, Section 174 gives the Investigating Officer to exercise his discretion on whether the
body should be sent for post mortem examination. However, it has been held in the case of
Kodali Puranachandra Rao v. The Public Prosecutor, State of A.P13 that the only circumstance in
13 AIR 1975 SC 1925.
16

which a body need not be sent for post-mortem examination is when there is no doubt as to the
cause of death.
Noncompliance of the provisions of section does not render the case fatal.14

INQUEST REPORT vs. POST MORTEM REPORT

A post mortem report is treated as medical evidence and falls within the ambit of Section 293 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. According to this section, reports of certain Government
scientific experts upon matters duly submitted to him for examination can be used as evidence in
any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code. The section also lays down that such an
expert writing the report can be summoned to court for examination. This is in consonance with
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sub-section 4 of Section 293 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 lists the various persons who qualify as scientific experts.
An Inquest Report on the other hand, is merely a procedural requirement under the Code which
only specifies prima facie cause of death. It is prepared by an Investigating Officer whenever a
suspicious death has occurred. It only specifies the injuries on the body of the victim and
circumstances in which the death occurred.
An Inquest Report is required to be submitted along with the body when it is sent for postmortem examination. Section 174 empowers the Investigating Officer to use his discretion on
whether a body has to be sent for post-mortem examination. However, Supreme Court judgments
have restricted this discretion by ruling that Investigating Officers can refrain from submitting a
body to post-mortem examination only if the cause of death is very apparent and unmistakable. 15
Lastly, both Inquest Report and a Post-Mortem Report serve only as corroborative evidence and
not substantial evidence.
14 Surinder Pal Singh v. State 1982 Punj LR (D.S) 156.
15 Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.), 1988 AIR 1883.
17

CONCLUSION
As repeatedly stated by the Courts, filing of an Inquest Report has procedural overtones to it and
is required only to document an unnatural death. Details as to the time cause and nature of death
is left to the medical practitioner who submits the post mortem report. An Investigating Officer is
not required to have medical knowledge. He needs to merely ascertain whether the death is an
unnatural one and what the apparent cause of it is.
Filing of an Inquest Report is the first step of an investigation procedure and needs to be
performed at the earliest. While the Report does not hold much evidentiary value, it does serve as
important tool for the prosecution and defense to discredit the witness if there is any discrepancy
between the statements made in the witness box and in the Panchanama. Inquest Report is also
very valuable to a medical examiner engaged in autopsy or post-mortem examination since it
gives him details as to the surroundings and the events that ultimately lead to the death.
Thus, the scope of Section 174 is very limited. However, this does not diminish the value of an
Inquest. It must be performed with due diligence to ensure no stone is left unturned by the
prosecution while framing a case.

18

19