Chattisgarh High Court
In Reference Of Courts On Its Own Motion ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2 Cra/76/2012 ... on 19 January, 2018
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Writ Petition (PIL) No.6 of 2017
In Reference of Courts on its own motion (Regarding death of Vikas Patel) Surendra Patel
Versus State of Chhattisgarh
19/01/2018 Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate appears as Amicus Curaie.
Shri Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate General for the State/Respondent No. 1
Shri Sourabh Dangi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 This is a matter in reference of Court on its own motion relating to the death of one Vikas Patel. This Court is seen to have acted upon a letter sent by Shri Surendra Patel, the father of Vikas Patel.
The proceedings and materials in this case tend to show that resolution of the issues of this case call for a deeper consideration. Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate was therefore appointed as Amicus Curaie. He has taken earnest efforts to hold effective discussions with the Petitioner and obtain his views in the matter. Shri Otwani has also accessed the requisite police papers to the extent they were made available to him. We have gone through the reports appended by the learned Amicus Curaie as his preliminary submissions, filed on 02.05.2017.
The fact of the matter remains that the information with respect to the unnatural death of Vikas Patel was not reported to the Executive Magistrate in terms of the mandatory provisions in Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; for short 'CrPC'. This fact situation is also admitted by the State authorities through their return filed on its behalf on 19.07.2017. We also notice that the stand of the official Respondents is that in these types of cases, as a matter of practice, the Investigating 2 Officer, after conducting the entire enquiry, submits the diary to the Executive Magistrate for further action if such enquiry by the Investigating Officer leads to the conclusion that the case is one for closure. This approach is wholly in violation of provisions of Section 174 CrPC.
Section 174 and 175 CrPC afford a complete code in itself for the purpose of "Inquiries" in case of accidental or suspicious deaths. Section 174 CrPC applies to all cases of unnatural death. It becomes a statutory obligation and duty of the police officer concerned to proceed under Section 174 CrPC in all cases where information is received that a person has committed suicide or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by accident or has died under circumstances raising reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed the offence. Therefore, in all cases of unnatural death, be it accidental, suicidal or homicidal, the Police Officer is bound by the said provision of law to proceed under Section 174(1) CrPC and to give intimation of that information to the nearest Executive Magistrate. It is the Executive Magistrate who is empowered to hold inquest in such cases. The manner of inquest is also statutorily provided and the procedure to be adopted by the police officer is also delineated in Section 174 and 175 CrPC. It appears that the Police Officers, by and large are under the impression that the requirement of inquest by the Executive Magistrate applies only to those cases which fall within sub-section (3) of Section 174 CrPC, that is to say, cases of suicide or suspicious death of a woman within seven years of marriage or where there is any doubt regarding the cause of death or where there is a request for further examination in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 174 CrPC. This assumption and approach by the Police is contrary to Section 174 CrPC and therefore, illegal. It is not only erroneous but amounts to failure to perform statutory duties. It is the mandate of Section 174(1) CrPC that when information is received in relation to unnatural death, be it as a result of suicide, accident or 3 homicide, the same has to be immediately intimated to the nearest Executive Magistrate.
The shortcomings in relation to violation of Section 174 CrPC is not only well established in this case, but it is also apparently accepted by the State that recourse to Section 174(1), by having the information intimated to the Executive Magistrate for inquest, is not carried out, though, that is the practice that is required to be statutorily carried to satisfy the mandate of Section 174(1) CrPC.
Therefore, the first Respondent is hereby directed to take note of the aforesaid factors and issue requisite circulars and directions immediately to all the Police Stations and the Police Officers as a whole for compliance of Section 174 CrPC, as enjoined therein.
Let this direction be given effect to within a period of three weeks and the action taken be placed on record on behalf of the Respondents.
On to the materials on record, it needs to be noted that the enormous efforts taken by the learned Amicus Curaie which is well reflected through his report, could be carried forward to secure the ends of justice by awaiting detailed and extensive report after obtaining videographs, photographs from the Investigating Officer.
The Investigating Officer is therefore directed to provide all materials as may be sought for by the learned Amicus Curaie and also render such assistance as may be required by him to consider the different aspects of the death of Vikas Patel, including all factual aspects. The learned Amicus Curaie is hereby authorised to call for such records from the Investigating Officer.
Post this matter after four weeks.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta)
Amit Chief Justice Judge