Custodial-death inquiry under CrPC Section 176(1-A) can name persons prima facie responsible, Madhya Pradesh High Court rules

Bheru, a convicted prisoner lodged in District Jail, Dhar, was allegedly assaulted by jail staff during a search operation on 27.02.2023 after tobacco was recovered from another inmate. His condition deteriorated, and he was declared dead at District Hospital, Dhar, at approximately 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.

On the request of the Jail Superintendent, the Principal District and Sessions Judge directed a Judicial Magistrate First Class to conduct an enquiry under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”).

The JMFC recorded statements of prisoners, inspected the jail premises, and submitted an enquiry report dated 03.04.2023 implicating the Jail Superintendent, other jail staff, and the medical-board doctors for custodial violence, negligence, and destruction or concealment of evidence.

Pursuant to the report and related communications, FIR No. 0336/2023 dated 08.05.2023 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dhar, including offences under Sections 304, 201 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

The Jail Superintendent and the doctors challenged the enquiry report and 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 only the medical or physiological cause of a custodial death, or may also examine the surrounding circumstances and identify persons prima facie responsible for the death.

Whether the JMFC exceeded his jurisdiction by implicating the Jail Superintendent, jail personnel, and medical-board doctors and directing registration of criminal proceedings.

Whether the enquiry report dated 03.04.2023 and FIR No. 0336/2023 dated 08.05.2023 were liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

Section 176(1-A) Cr.P.C. mandates a Judicial Magistrate’s enquiry, in addition to police investigation, where a person dies or disappears in police or other authorised custody; unlike Section 176(1), it is not expressly restricted to an “inquiry into the cause of death”.

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 jurisdiction enabling the Magistrate to investigate 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 concerning injuries sustained by a prisoner in jail custody were particularly within the knowledge of the jail administration.

The alleged conduct was assessed with reference to the IPC offences invoked in the FIR, including Section 304 concerning culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Sections 201 and 218 concerning destruction or concealment of evidence and preparation of incorrect records by a public servant.

The Court held that Bheru’s death squarely fell within Section 176(1-A) because it occurred while he was in authorised custody.

The statutory omission of the words “cause of death” in Section 176(1-A), contrasted with Section 176(1), demonstrated that the Magistrate’s enquiry was intended to be broader than a merely medical determination.

Applying Ram Sharan Prajapati, the Court found that the JMFC was competent to record evidence regarding the assault, the conduct of jail officials, the failure to provide timely medical assistance, and the alleged manipulation or destruction of evidence.

The enquiry report relied on prisoner testimony identifying the jail personnel who allegedly assaulted Bheru and placing the Jail Superintendent at the scene, where he allegedly failed to intervene or arrange immediate medical aid.

The allegations concerning the cleaning of vomit, shifting of the injured prisoner, and deficiencies in the autopsy documentation provided prima facie grounds for investigating offences against the jail officials and doctors.

Since the FIR initiated investigation and did not constitute a final determination of guilt, the Court found no basis to interfere at the threshold under Article 226.

The enquiry report dated 03.04.2023 was held neither jurisdictionally invalid nor perverse, and the consequential FIR No. 0336/2023 dated 08.05.2023 was upheld.

W.P. No. 15267/2023 and W.P. No. 19908/2023 were dismissed.

The investigating agency was directed to proceed impartially, expeditiously, and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in the writ proceedings; no order was made as to costs.