Custodial-death inquiry can identify those responsible, Madhya Pradesh High Court rules; FIR against jail officials and doctors upheld

Bheru, a convicted prisoner lodged at District Jail, Dhar, was allegedly assaulted by jail personnel during a search operation on 27.02.2023 after tobacco was recovered from another inmate. His condition deteriorated, and he was declared dead at the District Hospital at 8:00 p.m. the same day.

A medical board recorded eight ante-mortem injuries but kept the cause of death open pending the viscera report. Pursuant to the jail authorities’ intimation, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar, conducted an enquiry under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, recorded statements of prisoners and jail personnel, inspected the jail premises, and submitted a report dated 03.04.2023.

The report attributed the custodial death to physical assault and alleged negligence and evidence destruction by jail officials, including Jail Superintendent Raja Ram Dangi, and implicated the empanelled doctors for allegedly preparing a vague and misleading post-mortem report.

On the basis of the enquiry report and communications from senior police and prison authorities, FIR No. 0336/2023 dated 08.05.2023 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dhar, for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners challenged the enquiry report and the consequential FIRs under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether a Judicial Magistrate conducting an enquiry under Section 176(1-A) Cr.P.C. is confined to determining the medical or physiological cause of a custodial death, or may also identify persons allegedly responsible and record findings concerning the circumstances of death.

Whether the enquiry report dated 03.04.2023 and the consequential registration of FIR No. 0336/2023 were without jurisdiction, perverse, or otherwise liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

Whether the materials concerning the Jail Superintendent’s alleged failure to provide medical assistance and the doctors’ alleged manipulation or suppression of evidence disclosed sufficient prima facie grounds for criminal investigation.

The Court applied Section 176(1-A) Cr.P.C., which mandates a Judicial Magistrate’s enquiry where a person dies or disappears in police or other authorised custody, in addition to police investigation.

Relying on Ram Sharan Prajapati v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 8615/2013, decided on 20.08.2018, the Court held that Section 176(1-A) confers a wider power than Section 176(1), because it does not restrict the enquiry merely to the “cause of death”; the Magistrate may also examine the circumstances of the custodial death and name persons who may be responsible.

The Court also applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act, observing that facts particularly within the knowledge of the jail administration concerning injuries sustained in custody required explanation by the authorities.

The alleged conduct was assessed with reference to Sections 304, 201 and 218 IPC, relating respectively to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, causing disappearance or destruction of evidence, and framing an incorrect record by a public servant.

The Court further recognised that criminal investigation should not ordinarily be interdicted at the threshold where the FIR discloses serious prima facie allegations.

The Court held that the death occurred in authorised jail custody, thereby squarely attracting Section 176(1-A) Cr.P.C.

Since that provision is not confined to the medical cause of death, the JMFC acted within jurisdiction by examining the surrounding events, recording inmate testimony, identifying the alleged assailants, and assessing the conduct of supervisory officials.

The enquiry report contained material that jail personnel had beaten Bheru, that Superintendent Dangi was present during the assault, failed to arrange immediate medical assistance, and allegedly permitted subsequent acts such as cleaning vomit and shifting the injured prisoner, which the Magistrate treated as possible evidence destruction.

The Court further found that the allegations regarding incomplete autopsy entries and blurred videography constituted sufficient prima facie material against the doctors under Sections 201 and 218 IPC, although the ultimate truth of those allegations was a matter for investigation and trial.

Consequently, the Court found no jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226.

Both writ petitions were dismissed. The enquiry report dated 03.04.2023 and FIR No. 0336/2023 dated 08.05.2023 were upheld, and the investigating agency was directed to proceed impartially, expeditiously, and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the prima facie observations in the order.

No order was made as to costs.