Kerala High Court directs State to sensitize executive magistrates dealing with inquests into suspicious deaths

The Kerala High Court recently directed the State government to ensure that Executive Magistrates dealing with inquiries into suspicious deaths under Sections 174 to 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are appropriately sensitised. [K Krishnan v State of Kerala].These provisions deal with the procedure of inquiry in cases where a person has died under suspicious circumstances..Pertinently, Justice K Babu agreed with the contention that the family of the victims in such cases ought not be kept in the dark about the outcome of such inquiries. .The Court issued the following directions:In cases registered under Section 174 CrPC (inquiries into suicide, accidental deaths, suspicious deaths etc.) that do not culminate in the registration of a first information report (FIR) on the ground that no cognizable offence is revealed, the Executive Magistrate shall inform the same to the relatives of the deceased; During inquiry under Sections 174 to 176 of the CrPC, if the matter does not culminate in the registration of an FIR, but the Executive Magistrate receives information of the commission of a cognizable offence, he shall immediately inform the same to the Judicial Magistrate concerned, as provided in Section 190(c) CrPC; The Judicial Magistrate concerned shall, upon receipt of such information, proceed in accordance with law; The State government will ensure that the Executive Magistrates dealing with an inquiry under Sections 174 to 176 of the CrPC are sensitized to the relevant subjects..The judgment was passed on a petition moved by a man seeking an effective investigation into the death of his daughter who was found hanging in her bedroom. .The incident occurred within seven years of her marriage. According to the petitioner, his daughter had been complaining of harassment from her in-laws in connection with dowry. The petitioner first filed a complaint before the District Superintendent of Police seeking an effective investigation into the matter. He got reliable information that the police were trying to close the matter as unnatural death..The proceedings in this case saw arguments challenging the procedure being followed by the police in cases where an inquiry is conducted under Section 174 of CrPC. The primary grievance of the petitioner and the issues raised by the amici curiae appointed by the Court were that the relatives of the deceased or the complainant is kept in the dark about the outcome of inquests into unnatural deaths, if the police find that no offence is made out. Where the police find that no offence is made out, a report is submitted before the Executive Magistrate, after which the case is closed, the Court was told. .The Court accepted the contention that a victims cannot be treated as an alien or total stranger to criminal proceedings.Therefore, the Court deemed it fit to direct that Executive Magistrates must inform the relatives of the deceased of the outcome of inquiries under Section 174 CrPC, even in cases where no FIR is registered as no cognizable offence was found to have been committed. .In its analysis, the Court also noted that the scope of inquiry or investigation under Section 174 is limited. These proceedings are in the nature of fact-finding inquiries and the report prepared after such inquiry is only recommendatory in nature, the Court observed. "The report in no way determines the rights of the parties. This report is forwarded to the Police, which will form part of the materials collected during the investigation ... It is only the report containing the result of a fact-finding inquiry," the Court explained.The Court further noted that such a report does not have a "positive" or "negative character", nor the character of a "closure report" .In the present case, the Court opined that there was enough material to prima facie attract the offences of dowry death or abetment of suicide and that the police ought to have registered an FIR and investigated the matter further. Therefore, the Court ordered that the investigation into the death of the petitioner's daughter be handed over to a special team of the Crime Branch. .The petitioner was represented by advocates Suman Chakravarthy, KR Rija, and Amjath AR. Advocates John S Ralph and Ranjith B Marar assisted the court as amici curiae.Public Prosecutor MK Pushpalatha appeared for the State. .[Read Judgment]