June 2015

An inquest may be called at the behest of a coroner, judge, prosecutor, or, in some jurisdictions, upon a formal request from the public.[1] The term ‘Inquest’ means (quasistus i.e., referred as ‘to seek’); legal or judicial inquiry to ascertain a matter of fact. In broad terms, it can be understood as ‘inquest that implies to inquiry about the cause of death, which is apparently not due to natural causes. Such an inquiry and investigation of sudden, suspicious, or unnatural death is obviously necessary to apprehend and punish the offender.’ Or it can be said as the legal enquiry into the circumstances and the cause of death a deceased person in cases of sudden, suspicious and unnatural death, or generally it’s said to be the preliminary enquiry in to the cause of sudden suspicious unnatural death is known as Inquest.

An ‘inquest report’ or ‘panchnama’, is a report in which the available history of the case and circumstances under which the body was found or recovered are recorded. This recorded opinion of the witnesses and the police officer’s, regarding the injuries, manner of their causation, the cause of death, and indication of suspected foul play, if any. The whole purpose of preparing an inquest report under Section 174(1) Cr.P.C. 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, if any, such wounds appear to have been inflicted. That the inquest report was not the statement of any person wherein all the names of the persons accused were to be mentioned.[2]

Section 174, Criminal P. C. peremptorily requires that the officer holding an inquest on a dead body should do so at the spot. This mandate is conveyed by the word "there" occurring in Section 174 (1). Sub-section (3) of the Section further requires the Officer holding the inquest to forward the body with a view to its being examined, by the medical man appointed by the State Government in this behalf if the State of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless.[3]

Entries in the Inquest report are not substantive evidence. Mere omission of the number of the case in the Inquest report which may be either due to inadvertence or inefficiency of the Investigating Officer, would neither discredit its authenticity nor would adversely affect the investigation. Rule 25.35 of Chapt. XXV of the Police Rules, 1934, is directory in nature.[4] Preparation of Inquest report is a part of investigation. Statements made by witnesses to police during examination in preparation of Inquest report' is not substantive evidence and cannot form basis for conviction.[5] Under S.174, Cr.P.C. and Chapter XXV, Rule 35 of Police Rules, 1934 mentioning the F.I.R. number, names of accused or eye-witnesses or presence of empty shell in the Inquest report was not a requirement of law.[6] Manner in which incident took place of names of accused. Need not be mentioned in inquest report.[7] Law does not require that the Inquest report shall provide the names of the accused and the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.[8]

Where Non-mentioning of empty in Inquest report was negligence on the part of Investigating Officer and as such prosecution should not suffer for the same[9] or when the Inquest report revealed that it did not contain any F.I.R. number and weapons of offence had not been mentioned in its Column No.2.[10] or where weapon had not been specified; in another column of the Inquest report time of death had not been mentioned and in other two columns, it had not been mentioned that any empty was lying near the dead body.[11] F.I.R. registered after preparation of Inquest Report[12], when Names of the complainant and the eye-witnesses were not mentioned in the Inquest report,[13] or when Inquest report and injury statement, did not bear signatures and stamp of the Doctor.[14] Non-sending of crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory immediately after their recovery coupled with non-mentioning of crime empties in the Inquest reports was sufficient to draw an inference that the crime empties were manoeuvred after the recovery of alleged weapons of offence from the accused..[15] When Inquest reports prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot were silent about the involvement of the accused.[16] Or when witness his name had not been mentioned in the brief summary of facts given in the Inquest report.[17] or when no injury had been mention on person of deceased in the Inquest report.[18] or where Investigating Officer, in Column of Inquest Report had not mentioned the presence of any article at the place of incident at the time of occurrence.[19] Or where Inquest Report of deceased was prepared after sixteen days of the registration of the F.I.R..[20] When the Time of death had not been mentioned in Column No.3 of the Inquest report.[21] Or when the Inquest report prepared by the Investigating Officer was also silent about the presence of both the witnesses who claimed to have seen the occurrence.[22] but even in Column of the Inquest report no time of information had been given as required under the law.[23] And when the witnesses whose presence at the spot had not been proved, did not sign Inquest report as eye-witnesses which was a most important document[24], therefore, in all these circumstances the accused is acquitted from the charges.

Failure to mention recovery of crime empties in statement of facts recorded in Inquest report or omission in not pointing out place to draftsman from where crime empties were picked up, is a mere irregularity without any legal consequence, as the law does not require them to be mentioned in the Inquest report.[25] Mention of crime empties in F.I.R. or Inquest report are also not required. Law does not require that the crime empties found on the spot must be mentioned in the F.I.R. or Inquest report.[26] Column No. 12 of the Inquest report regarding crime weapon, requires an opinion as to the kind of crime weapon used in the occurrence and not that the crime weapon should also be mentioned as per requirement of S. 174, Cr.P.C.[27] Non-mentioning of crime empties in Inquest report could not belie the recovery as lapses on the part of Investigating Officer could not be used to contradict the prosecution evidence of unimpeachable character.[28] Lapses on the part of Investigating Officer cannot be used to contradict the prosecution evidence of unimpeachable character[29], and non-production of Inquest report and injury sheet prepared by police was not fatal to prosecution case.[30] Where Name of witness not mentioned in inquest report[31] and Omission due to inadvertence or inefficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer to fill column in the Inquest report or failure to mention the number of the case or absence of details of place of occurrence hardly discredit its authenticity or adversely affect investigation, particularly in the presence of ocular account of the occurrence.[32] When the Inquest reports contained the brief details of the case, which reconciled with the contents of the F.I.R., so the omission of Investigation Officer to mention the name of complainant on two memos and name of accused on some memos did not affect the prosecution case in any manner.[33]

Job of a Police Officer conducting an investigation is confined only to collection of evidence, which has to be placed by him before the competent court and then it is the authority and obligation of the court to form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of accused and to adjudicate accordingly. Conceding formation of such an opinion to a Police Officer would be a grave illegality, which would lead to grave injustice and serious resulting consequences.[34] Purpose of investigation under section 174, Cr.P.C. or inquiry under section 176, Cr.P.C. is only to ensure that no offence has been committed in connection with death of a person. Such investigation or inquiry is not to establish that suicide has occurred.[35] A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the object of the proceedings under Section 174 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 death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. In these circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to have mentioned these details in the inquest report.[36]

[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquest

[2]. AIR 1998 SC 1376 = (1998) 4 SCC 605 (Para 31) + PLD 2006 PESH 5

[3]. AIR 1975 SC 1925 = (1975) 2 SCC 570 (Para 37)

[4]. 2004 SCMR 1703

[5]. PLD 2006 PESH 5

[6]. 2012 YLR 1325 [Peshawar]

[7]. A.I.R 2003 SC 1164 D.

[8]. PLD 2006 PESH 5

[9]. 2006 PCr.LJ 1152 [Lahore]

[10]. 2007 PCr.LJ 187 [Lahore] +2006 PCr.LJ 1072 [Lahore]

[11]. 2007 MLD 100 [Lahore]

[12]. 2012 MLD 179 [Lahore] + 2003 YLR 2457 [Lahore]

[13]. 2012 MLD 1832 [Lahore]

[14]. 2007 YLR 1234 [Lahore]

[15]. 2003 YLR 1164 [Lahore]

[16]. 2005 PCr.LJ 1167 [Lahore]

[17]. 2007 PCr.LJ 354 [Lahore]

[18]. 2002 YLR 440 [Lahore]

[19]. 2007 YLR 1298 [Lahore]

[20]. 2013 YLR 788 [Lahore]

[21]. 2008 YLR 891 [Lahore]

[22]. 2003 PCr.LJ 1826 [Lahore]

[23]. 2007 YLR 1985 [Lahore]

[24]. 2002 YLR 901 [Lahore]

[25]. PLD 2006 PESH 5

[26]. 2001 SCMR 241

[27]. PLD 2006 PESH 5

[28]. 2007 YLR 2709 [Lahore]

[29]. 2007 YLR 2709 [Lahore]

[30]. 2005 PCr.LJ 1352 SHARIATCOURT

[31]. 2002 SCMR 1255

[32]. PLD 2006 PESH 5.

[33]. 2012 MLD 1274 [Lahore].

[34]. 2012 PCrLJ 891.

[35]. 2011 CLD 350.

[36] . AIR 1997 SC 2512 = (1997) 10 SCC 135 (Para 10).