Supreme Court: Whether the court should release accused prosecuted for grave offence if his name is not mentioned in inquest report?

 The requirement of the section is that the police

officer shall record the apparent cause of death

describing the wounds as may be found on the body and

also the weapon or instrument by which they appear to

have been inflicted and this has to be done in the

presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the

neighbourhood. The section does not contemplate that the

manner in which the incident took place or the names of

the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report.

The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report

regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether

it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery

etc.”

14. Thus, non-mentioning of the author of the crime or

the person who had caused the death in the inquest report

cannot, by itself, be a reason to doubt the involvement of the

accused, who may be subsequently named. Therefore, the

High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference

merely because the informant-Appellant and another Panch

witness had not made any allegations against the

Respondent No. 2 at the stage of inquest proceedings. The

judicial discretion to grant bail, though undoubtedly wide,

is nevertheless required to be exercised in a judicious and

reasoned manner by adverting to the settled parameters

governing the grant of bail, particularly where the

accusations are grave in nature.

15. Even assuming that the High Court could have taken

into consideration the non-mentioning of Respondent No. 2

during the inquest proceedings, the same could not have

been viewed in isolation while ignoring the other materials

collected during the investigation. The specific overt act

attributed to Respondent No. 2 in the FIR, the chargesheet,

the post-mortem report corroborating the prosecution’s

version, the recovery of the alleged weapon at the instance

of Respondent No. 2, as well as the statements of the

witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, constituted material

circumstances which required due consideration. In our

considered view, the aforesaid materials, which prima facie

implicate Respondent No. 2, could not have been brushed

aside solely on account of the alleged omission during the

inquest proceedings.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______OF 2026

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 4240 of 2026)

BHAGAT SINGH Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

AND ANR.

Dated: MAY 22, 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 527

Print Page

Can the court acquit the accused if there is a discrepancy between the inquest report and the post mortem report?

  Now turning to the next plea on which a lot of emphasis was placed by learned counsel for the appellant, it was urged that there was a major discrepancy between the inquest report (Ex.3) and the post-mortem report (Ex.1). This aspect was actually sought to be linked to the plea of the FIR being ante timed. There are stated to be differences in the version which would indicate that the fardbeyan was lodged only after the post-mortem report. The factual basis for the same is stated to be that in the inquest report six injuries are mentioned with no mention of gunshot injury while the post-mortem report shows that there are 26 injuries including the gunshot injury. The pistol was not recovered from him nor any cartridge found and A.S.I. Rajnikant Jha who recorded both the fardbeyan as well as the inquest report was not examined by the prosecution. On this aspect learned counsel relied upon the observations in Maula Bux & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, ((1983) 1 SCC 379). 

{Para 29}

30. On the other hand learned counsel for the State sought to submit that inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witness of inquest (Suresh Roy v. State of Bihar, ((2000) 4 SCC 84)). He submitted that the inquest report is not really an evidence by itself and cannot be pitted against the evidence of the medical witness in court (Surjan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (AIR 1956 SC 425)). Learned counsel drew our attention to the observations in Pedda Narayana & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh, ((1975) 4 SCC 153) opining that the object of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is merely to ascertain that whether the person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of death. The details, however, as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him would be foreign to the scope of proceedings under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C., nor are such details required to be mentioned in the inquest report (Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh & Ors., ((2017) 11 SCC 195)).

31. Learned counsel next turned to the more recent judgment of this Court in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, ((2018) 6 SCC 72) opining that the purpose of holding an inquest is limited and the inquest report does not constitute substantive evidence. As compared to an inquest report, the doctor who conducts the post-mortem examination, examines the body from a medico-legal perspective. It is, thus, the post-mortem report that is expected to contain the details of injuries through a scientific examination. In that context he submitted that Maula Bux & Ors., ((supra)) case did not help the appellant as a police officer who prepared the inquest panchnama is not an expert in medical jurisprudence.

32. On examination of the aforesaid pleas, insofar as the factual context is concerned, there is little doubt that there is not a minor but a major difference in recording the number of injuries suffered by the deceased in the inquest report and the post-mortem report. However, this will not be fatal in our view. We say so keeping in mind the purpose of an inquest report, which is not a substantive evidence. The objective is to find out whether a person who has died under suspicious circumstances, what may be the apparent cause of his death. In the present case the death was unnatural. 

Supreme Court

JUSTICE Sanjay Kishan Kaul JUSTICE M.M. Sundresh

PAPPU TIWARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1492 OF 2021

31st January 2022

Author: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

Citation: 2022 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 105

Print Page

Supreme Court: Post mortem report will prevail over inquest report in case of inconsistency

 As far as the injuries in the Inquest report not being noticed in the post-mortem report is concerned, there can no doubt that the medical doctor knows exactly what medical injuries are and ordinarily in case of inconsistency, the medical report of the doctor should prevail. Having regard to the post mortem and the evidence of P.W. 1, the nature of injuries noticed as explained by the deposition of P.W. 1 unerringly point to the death being caused by throttling as opined by the doctor. Much may not turn on the injuries which are alleged to have been noted in the Inquest not being noted in the post mortem note.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1181 of 2011

Decided On: 06.11.2019

 Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh  Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Print Page

Whether prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond all doubts?

It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not all doubts. Here, it is worthwhile to reproduce the observations made by Venkatachaliah, J., in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Anr. MANU/SC/0506/1988 : (1988) 4 SCC 302:

25. ... Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.

26. The concept of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice.

[See also Krishnan v. State MANU/SC/0505/2003 : (2003) 7 SCC 56; Valson and Anr. v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/7901/2008 : (2008) 12 SCC 24 and Bhaskar Ramappa Madar and Ors. v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0495/2009 : (2009) 11 SCC 690].

16. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. [Vide Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh MANU/SC/0121/1973 : (1973) 2 SCC 808; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram MANU/SC/0595/2003 : (2003) 8 SCC 180; Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/7108/2007 : (2007) 4 SCC 415; Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa MANU/SC/0501/2015 : (2015) 11 SCC 124 and Golbar Hussain and Ors. v. State of Assam and Anr. MANU/SC/0500/2015 : (2015) 11 SCC 242].

17. However, the Rule regarding the benefit of doubt does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resorting to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations, as has been held by this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh MANU/SC/0193/1973 : (1974) 3 SCC 277:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2013

Decided On: 20.10.2016

 Yogesh Singh Vs.  Mahabeer Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy, JJ.

Citation:(2017) 11 SCC 195.

Print Page

Whether will be effect of overwriting in inquest report?

The next factual lacunae raised was overwriting in the inquest report. The inquest report by the police officer is prepared Under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The scope of the section is investigation by the police in cases of unnatural or suspicious death. However, the scope is very limited and aimed at ascertaining the first apparent signs of the death. Apart from this the police officer has to investigate the place wherefrom the dead body is recovered, describe wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, stating in what manner or by what weapon or instrument, such injuries appear to have been inflicted. From the above, it thus becomes clear, that the section aims at preserving the first look at the recovered body and it need not contain every detail. Mere overwriting in the name of the informant would not affect the proceedings. The fact of homicidal death was not in dispute and the manner in which the death was occurred is also not disputed. Then merely name being overwritten will not help the defence, when the contents of the inquest report was supported by the eye witnesses and also the medical evidences.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1033 of 2010, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1034-1036 of 2010, 

Decided On: 16.12.2015

 Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Pinaki Chandra Ghose and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.

Citation: (2016) 15 SCC 448.

Print Page

Whether prosecution case can be disbelieved if there are omissions in inquest report?

 In the above judgment also this Court while considering the inquest report laid down that omissions in the inquest report are not sufficient to put the prosecution out of court. {para 40}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2010

Decided On: 20.07.2017

 State of U.P. Vs.Ram Kumar and Ors.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of inquest Report?

It was further noted by the High Court that the special report of the incident, that is, copy of the FIR had been received by the Magistrate 1½ months after the incident. Moreover, there was no time mentioned by PW8 in the relevant column as to when the inquest proceedings were started nor was any date or time mentioned in the relevant column as to when the inquest proceeding ended allegedly at the instruction of PW9, thus leading to an inference of antedating and fabrication. We find that these observations of the High Court are not supported by the evidence on record inasmuch as the DW1 was himself not sanguine as to the correct date of receipt of the FIR in the present case. He simply stated that due to workload, the entry was made on 10.08.1982. Further, PW8 had stated in his deposition that PW9 must have spoken about the date and time of starting the Panchnama to be recorded in the relevant column but he could not be certain in view of loud noise at the place of the incident at the relevant time. In any event, in the light of the position of law examined above and the observation of the Trial Court that these merely show remissness on part of the investigating officer and should not be treated as fatal to the prosecution case, we are not inclined to disbelieve the prosecution story.

 Further, the evidentiary value of the inquest report prepared under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. has also been long settled through a series of judicial pronouncements of this Court. It is well-established that inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be looked into for testing the veracity of the witnesses of inquest. The object of preparing such report is merely to ascertain the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or caused by animals or machinery etc. and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument, the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. [See Pedda Narayan Vs. State of A.P., (1975) 4 SCC 153; Khujji Vs. State of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627; Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 1; George and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (2008) 4 SCC 605; Suresh Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 84; Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 518; Radha Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450; Sambhu Das Vs. State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374].

42. In the present case, it is not the case of the accused that they have been prejudiced by the alleged delay in dispatch of the FIR to the nearest Magistrate competent to take cognizance of such offence. Moreover, in our opinion, the non-recording of certain relevant entries in the inquest report do not constitute a material defect so grave to throw out the prosecution story and the otherwise reliable testimonies of prosecution witnesses that have mostly remained uncontroverted.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Yogesh Singh vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors on 20 October, 2016

Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy

Print Page

Whether credibility of witness will be effected if witness is not named in inquest report?

The fact that PW1 was not named in the inquest report is of no
consequence as the inquest report relates to the cause of death and not
the witnesses’ account of the incident. The first informant though had
not named PW1 in the complaint such omission is not fatal in the face
of otherwise cogent and convincing evidence of PW1, corroborated by
PW65. The other three eyewitnesses: PW2, PW3 and PW5 turned hostile
during the trial and did not support the prosecution case at all, but that
does not affect the statements of PW1 and PW65. PW1’s statement

cannot be rejected only on the ground that she is an interested witness
as she has been particularly corroborated by PW65’s testimony.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2118-2119 OF 2009
SHEIKH SINTHA MADHAR @ JAFFER @
SINTHA 
V
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
Dated:April 13, 2016.
Citation:(2016) 11 SCC265

Print Page