The Allahabad High Court has directed a judicial inquiry into the death of a person who allegedly died while in the custody of the Special Task Force (STF), after taking note of the post-mortem report which recorded that the deceased had suffered injuries before death. The direction was issued while the Court was hearing a petition seeking transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or another independent agency for a fair and expeditious investigation. The Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra examined the circumstances surrounding the death and the material placed before it concerning the custody of the deceased and the investigation that had followed.
The Court noted that the deceased had died while in STF custody. It also took note of the fact that the post-mortem report recorded antemortem injuries, meaning injuries that had been sustained before the person's death. At the same time, the family members of the deceased had specifically alleged that the death had occurred as a result of torture by STF personnel. The Court considered these circumstances while examining whether the mandatory judicial inquiry contemplated under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been conducted in accordance with law.
The High Court observed that despite an earlier direction, the mandatory judicial inquiry required in a case of death in custody had not taken place. An earlier report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, made it clear that the judicial inquiry contemplated under Section 176(1-A) CrPC had not been conducted. The report therefore brought to the Court's attention the fact that the statutory inquiry contemplated in cases involving death in police or other authorised custody had not been completed.
A subsequent report stated that no request for such an inquiry had been made by the family members of the deceased and that, for this reason, no inquiry had been conducted. The High Court examined this explanation in light of the statutory provision governing custodial deaths. The Court reproduced Section 176(1-A) CrPC and considered the requirement contained in the provision concerning an inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate when a person dies or disappears while in police custody or any other custody authorised by a Magistrate or Court.
Section 176(1-A) CrPC provides for a judicial inquiry in circumstances where a person dies or disappears while in police custody or any other custody authorised by a Magistrate or Court. The provision contemplates an inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate in addition to the investigation conducted by the police. The High Court considered this statutory requirement while determining whether the absence of a request from the deceased's family could justify the non-conduct of the judicial inquiry.
The Court also considered an inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Pratapgarh. During that inquiry, the SDM referred to the medical report and acknowledged that the deceased had died while in STF custody. The SDM, however, observed that the death appeared to be natural. The observation was based on the fact that the deceased was a heart patient and had allegedly died due to a heart attack.
The High Court subsequently considered the post-mortem findings, which recorded antemortem injuries on the deceased. The Court also took into consideration the allegation made by the family members that the deceased had died because of torture by STF personnel. These circumstances were considered against the earlier conclusion that the death appeared to be natural. The Court therefore examined whether the statutory requirement of a judicial inquiry remained applicable in light of the material relating to the death.
The Court also referred to proceedings before the National Human Rights Commission concerning the interpretation and application of Section 176(1-A) CrPC in cases of custodial death. The proceedings before the NHRC were relevant to the question of whether a judicial inquiry was mandatory in such circumstances or whether the nature of the death could determine the type of inquiry required.
The High Court noted that the NHRC had, in an earlier context, observed that an inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate was mandatory in cases of custodial death where there was a reasonable suspicion of foul play or a well-founded allegation of an offence. At the same time, the NHRC had indicated that natural custodial deaths could be examined by an Executive Magistrate. The interpretation had subsequently been reconsidered by the NHRC because of an apparent ambiguity concerning the scope of Section 176(1-A) CrPC.
The NHRC later acknowledged that the statutory provision, as amended by Parliament, required a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate to conduct the inquiry in cases falling within the provision. The earlier circular concerning the interpretation was therefore withdrawn. The High Court took note of this development while considering the statutory requirement applicable to the death in the present case.
The material before the High Court showed that the deceased had died while in STF custody and that the post-mortem report recorded antemortem injuries. In addition, the family had made a specific allegation that the death was caused by torture by STF personnel. These circumstances were considered by the Court while determining whether the judicial inquiry required under Section 176(1-A) CrPC had to be conducted.
The Court concluded that a judicial inquiry under Section 176(1-A) CrPC was required in the circumstances of the case. The conclusion was reached after considering the statutory provision, the custody in which the deceased died, the post-mortem findings and the allegations made by the family members. The Court therefore directed that the inquiry required under the law be conducted by the competent judicial authority.
The High Court accordingly directed the District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, to issue the necessary directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for conducting the judicial inquiry in compliance with Section 176(1-A) CrPC. The direction specifically required the inquiry to be undertaken in accordance with the statutory provision governing deaths occurring in police custody or other custody authorised by a Magistrate or Court.
The Court further directed that the judicial inquiry should be conducted and concluded expeditiously. The inquiry was directed to preferably be completed within six weeks. After its completion, the inquiry report was directed to be placed before the High Court in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing.
The direction for submission of the report in a sealed cover requires the competent judicial authority to complete the inquiry within the period indicated by the Court and place its findings before the High Court for consideration. The Court therefore kept the matter pending for further consideration after receipt of the judicial inquiry report.
The proceedings before the High Court arose from a petition in which the petitioner had sought transfer of the investigation to the CBI or another independent agency. The request for an independent investigation was made in the context of the circumstances surrounding the death in STF custody and the allegations concerning the conduct of STF personnel. The Court, while considering the petition, focused on the statutory requirement of a judicial inquiry and directed that the inquiry contemplated under Section 176(1-A) CrPC be conducted.
The post-mortem report was a significant part of the material considered by the Court. While the SDM inquiry had referred to the possibility of a natural death because the deceased was a heart patient and was stated to have died from a heart attack, the post-mortem report recorded antemortem injuries. The family members had also alleged that the deceased had died because of torture while in STF custody. The High Court considered these circumstances while determining the requirement for a judicial inquiry.
The Court's consideration of the NHRC proceedings also addressed the statutory character of the inquiry contemplated under Section 176(1-A) CrPC. The earlier interpretation concerning circumstances in which a Judicial Magistrate's inquiry would be required had subsequently been reconsidered by the NHRC. The withdrawal of the earlier circular followed recognition that the amended statutory provision required an inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate in cases covered by the provision.
The High Court therefore did not accept the absence of a request from the family members as a reason for not conducting the judicial inquiry. The statutory requirement under Section 176(1-A) CrPC was considered in the context of the death occurring while the deceased was in STF custody. The Court consequently directed the competent judicial authorities to conduct the inquiry in accordance with the provision.
The case is titled Jhanvi Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of U.P. and Others. The proceedings concern the death of a person while in STF custody and the requirement of a judicial inquiry under Section 176(1-A) CrPC. The High Court's order directs the District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, to ensure that the Chief Judicial Magistrate conducts the required inquiry and that the resulting report is submitted before the High Court in a sealed cover.
The Court directed that the inquiry be completed expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, and that the report be placed before it at the next hearing. The matter therefore remained pending before the High Court for consideration of the judicial inquiry report and further proceedings in the petition seeking an independent investigation.
The High Court's order thus centres on the requirement of a judicial inquiry where a person dies while in police or other authorised custody. In the proceedings before it, the Court took note of the fact that the deceased had died in STF custody, the post-mortem report recorded antemortem injuries, and the family members had alleged death due to torture. The Court also considered the earlier SDM inquiry, which had regarded the death as apparently natural because the deceased was a heart patient and had suffered a heart attack.
After examining the statutory provision and the material relating to the case, the High Court concluded that the judicial inquiry contemplated under Section 176(1-A) CrPC was required. It consequently directed the District and Sessions Judge to issue the necessary directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for conducting the inquiry. The Court required the inquiry to be completed expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, and directed that the report be submitted before it in a sealed cover at the next hearing.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.