It has been canvassed on behalf of the appellants that the provisions of Sections 174 and 176(3) Cr.P.C. had not been complied with and the body had been exhumed by the IO without the permission of the Executive Magistrate and therefore, the investigation had not been conducted in accordance with law. Sub-section (1) of Section 174 Cr.P.C. only puts an obligation on the part of the IO to intimate the Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquest but there is nothing in law which provides that investigation cannot be carried out without his permission in writing or in his absence. Even otherwise, the provision stands qualified “unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate.” The object of the inquest proceeding is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under unnatural circumstances or an unnatural death and if so, what is the cause of death. More so, the inquest report is not a piece of substantive evidence and can be utilised only for contradicting the witnesses to the inquest examined during the trial. Neither the inquest report nor the post-mortem report can be termed as basic or substantive evidence and thus, any discrepancy occurring therein cannot be termed as fatal or suspicious circumstance which would warrant benefit of doubt to the accused.
Supreme Court of India
Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. vs State Of Karnataka on 28 November, 2013
Print Page
