Whether it is mandatory to report all unnatural deaths whether it amounts to offence or not?

 Section 176 of Indian Penal Code is on subject of
omission to give notice or information to public servant by
person legally bound to give it. This Section makes such
omission an offence punishable with simple imprisonment for
a term which may extend to one month or with fine of
Rs.500/- or with both. If such information pertained to an
offence, the simple imprisonment may extend to 6 months or
fine may be Rs. 1000/.
60. Section 43 does not stipulate what is legal. It points
out act or omission which is illegal and obligation to report
flowing from “legally bound to do” needs to be construed in
that light. So an incident like accident leading to death of a
minor girl which may also sustain a civil cause, being viewed
as illegal, therefore, must be reported to police or concerned
competent authority. Omission to report it is illegal. 

Machinery mandated under S. 174 Cr.P.C. can not be allowed
to be rendered nugatory. All unnatural deaths are covered
under provisions of IPC. Whether it is an offence or not, is for
the Investigating Officer to decide. Otherwise it will provide an
escape route for the offender and he may clean or destroy all
evidence under a specious plea that the un-natural death was
not an offence but an unfortunate accident for which he is not
liable. Such a loophole is not envisaged by the Legislature. If
the arguments on these lines are accepted, S. 304A IPC will be
rendered nugatory. S.176 IPC therefore employs the word “on
any subject”.

Provisions looked into by us particularly Section 43 of Indian
Penal Code shows that even when the consequences furnish a
ground for civil action, the person in knowledge is legally
bound to give information thereof to the competent authority
which may include the police Section 176 of the Code makes
omission to give information “on any subject” to any public
servant, an offence. In this backdrop, Section 201 of IPC gets

attracted and causing disappearance of evidence of offence
under Section 176 becomes punishable thereunder. Section
43, Section 176 and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code clearly
obliged first accused No. 1 Nazir before us to report the
incident to police and not to wipe it out altogether.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CONFIRMATION CASE NO.01 OF 2016

The State of Maharashtra  Vs  Nazir Javed Khan 

CORAM :B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON :03rd June, 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

Print Page

Whether FIR lodged after closing of case on earlier inquiry conducted for unnatural death is maintainable?

 Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that
the earlier or the first information in regard to the commission
of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirement of Section 154
of the Code and there cannot be second FIR or fresh
investigation of any subsequent information in respect of the
same cognizable offence. Learned senior counsel further
stressed upon that when the police had conducted inquiry on
the information and closed the case there is no point in
re-opening the case by filing FIR that too on the basis of
anonymous letters received by the brother of the deceased
after a lapse of 5 (five) years. In view of the above claim of
learned senior counsel for the appellants, it is imperative to
discuss the scope of ‘Inquiry’ under Section 174 of the Code in
order to ascertain as to whether the ‘information’ received
under Section 174 of the Code satisfies the requirement of
Section 154 of the Code.
Scope of ‘Inquiry’ under Section 174 of the Code:
10) The proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited
scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain
whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or
an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the
death. The question regarding the details as to how the
deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what
circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and
scope of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code.
Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to
mention those details in the inquest report. It is, therefore,
10not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the
inquest report. The procedure under Section 174 is for the
purpose of discovering the cause of death, and the evidence
taken was very short. When the body cannot be found or has
been buried, there can be no investigation under Section 174.
This section is intended to apply to cases in which an inquest
is necessary. The proceedings under this Section should be
kept more distinct from the proceedings taken on the
complaint. Whereas the starting point of the powers of police
was changed from the power of the officer in charge of a police
station to investigate into a cognizable offence without the
order of a Magistrate, to the reduction of the first information
regarding commission of a cognizable offence, whether
received orally or in writing, into writing. As such, the
objective of such placement of provisions was clear which was
to ensure that the recording of the first information should be
the starting point of any investigation by the police. The
purpose of registering FIR is to set the machinery of criminal
investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the
police report and only after registration of FIR, beginning of
11investigation in a case, collection of evidence during
investigation and formation of the final opinion is the
sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173
of the Code. In George and Others vs. State of Kerala and
Another (1998) 4 SCC 605, it has been held that the
investigating officer is not obliged to investigate, at the stage of
inquest, or to ascertain as to who were the assailants. A
similar view has been taken in Suresh Rai and Others vs.
State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 84.
11) In this view of the matter, Sections 174 and 175 of the
Code afford a complete Code in itself for the purpose of
“Inquiries” in cases of accidental or suspicious deaths and are
entirely distinct from the “investigation” under Section 157 of
the Code wherein if an officer in-charge of a police station has
reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is
empowered to investigate, he shall proceed in person to the
spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case. In
the case on hand, an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code
was convened initially in order to ascertain whether the death
is natural or unnatural. Learned senior counsel for the
12appellants claims that the earlier information regarding
unnatural death amounted to FIR under Section 154 of the
Code which was investigated by the police and thereafter the
case was closed. On a careful scrutiny of materials on record,
the inquiry which was conducted for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the death is natural or unnatural cannot
be categorized under information relating to the commission of
a cognizable offence within the meaning and import of Section
154 of the Code. On information received by P.S. Mulana, the
police made an inquiry as contemplated under Section 174 of
the Code. After holding an inquiry, the police submitted its
report before the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambala stating
therein that it was a case of hanging and no cognizable offence
is found to have been committed. In the report, it was also
mentioned that the father of the deceased-R.P. Sharma (PW-1)
does not want to take any further action in the matter. In view
of the above discussion, it clearly goes to show that what was
undertaken by the police was an inquiry under Section 174 of
the Code which was limited to the extent of natural or
unnatural death and the case was closed. Whereas, the
condition precedent for recording of FIR is that there must be
an information and that information must disclose a
cognizable offence and in the case on hand, it leaves no matter
of doubt that the intimation was an information of the nature
contemplated under Section 174 of the Code and it could not
be categorized as information disclosing a cognizable offence.
Also, there is no material to show that the police after
conducting investigation submitted a report under Section 173
of the Code as contemplated, before the competent authority,
which accepted the said report and closed the case.
12) In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the
investigation on an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code is
distinct from the investigation as contemplated under Section
154 of the Code relating to commission of a cognizable offence
and in the case on hand there was no FIR registered with the
P.S. Mulana neither any investigation nor any report under
Section 173 of the Code was submitted. Therefore, challenge
to impugned FIR under Crime No. 194 of 2005 registered by
P.S. Bhilai Nagar could not be assailed on the ground that it
was second FIR in the garb of which investigation or fresh
investigation of the same incident was initiated.
 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2013
Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. .... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. .... Respondent(s)

Dated:AUGUST 23, 2016.
R.K. Agrawal, J.
Citation:AIR 2016 SC 3930

Print Page