Custodial-death magisterial inquiries can identify those responsible and examine foul play, Madhya Pradesh HC holds

Arjun Singare was taken into police custody on 02.09.2022 in connection with two criminal cases registered at Police Station Maanpur, Indore. While in custody, he was taken to Civil Hospital, Maanpur, where he was declared dead at 12:55 a.m. on 03.09.2022.

A merg inquiry was registered and the Superintendent of Police requested an inquiry under Section 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”).

The inquiry was initially conducted by one JMFC and subsequently completed by another, who submitted a report dated 29.06.2026 in MJCR No. 2948/2022.

Vijay Kumar Sisodiya, the then Station House Officer/In-charge of Police Station Maanpur, filed W.P. No. 27409/2026 seeking quashing of the inquiry report and consequential proceedings. Constable Avinash filed M.Cr.C. No. 33769/2026 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) for similar relief.

During the inquiry, the police informed the Magistrate that a transformer fault had damaged electrical equipment at the police station and that CCTV footage for 02–03.09.2022 was unavailable.

Whether an inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 176(1A) CrPC in relation to a custodial death is confined merely to the medical or physiological cause of death, or may extend to the circumstances, sequence of events, responsibility, and possible foul play?

Whether the inquiry report dated 29.06.2026 and the consequential proceedings in MJCR No. 2948/2022 were legally infirm and liable to be quashed?

Whether the police authorities were required to conduct an independent investigation and secure relevant evidence, including CCTV footage, notwithstanding the pendency of the judicial inquiry under Section 176(1A) CrPC?

Whether the disputed CCTV footage could be directed to be considered in the magisterial inquiry despite its non-availability and apparent modification?

Section 176(1A) CrPC requires a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate to conduct an inquiry, in addition to the police investigation, where a person dies or disappears in police custody; unlike Section 176(1), it is not restricted to an inquiry into the “cause of death” alone.

The inquiry may therefore examine the circumstances and sequence of the custodial incident, the cause of death, persons responsible or suspected of foul play, official acts or omissions contributing to the death, and the adequacy of medical treatment.

Sections 176(2) and 176(5) CrPC require recording of evidence and prompt medical examination/post-mortem procedures.

The Court relied on Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., which distinguished a limited inquest from a full investigation; Tarachand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that a Section 176(1A) report is not a full-fledged investigation; and Ramsharan Prajapati v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which recognised that a Judicial Magistrate may identify persons who may be responsible for a custodial death.

It also relied on Rajaram Dangi v. State of M.P., recognising the comprehensive nature of a Section 176(1A) inquiry.

The judicial inquiry does not replace or prevent a police investigation, which must proceed to its logical conclusion and culminate in a final report under the applicable procedural law.

The Court held that the omission of the words “into the cause of death” from Section 176(1A), in contrast with Section 176(1), demonstrated the legislature’s intention to confer a wider jurisdiction on the Judicial Magistrate in custodial-death cases.

Consequently, the Magistrate was entitled to examine not only the medical cause of Arjun Singare’s death but also the surrounding circumstances, the sequence of police conduct, possible violations of judicial or statutory safeguards, and the responsibility of police personnel.

The report’s findings concerning the conduct of police officers and the circumstances leading to death therefore did not exceed the permissible scope of a Section 176(1A) inquiry.

The Court further clarified that the judicial inquiry and police investigation operate concurrently. The pendency of the magisterial inquiry could not justify delay or inaction by the police, particularly in securing perishable electronic evidence such as CCTV footage.

The failure to preserve or produce the CCTV footage raised serious concerns and was inconsistent with the safeguards recognised in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and other custodial-violence authorities.

However, because the pen-drive media file showed modification on 06.09.2022, the Court found that no direction could be issued requiring the Judicial Magistrate to rely upon that footage.

Accordingly, W.P. No. 27409/2026 and M.Cr.C. No. 33769/2026 were dismissed.

W.P. No. 33870/2024 was also dismissed. The Court declined to direct consideration of the CCTV footage because it was unavailable and the submitted media file had been modified after the incident.

The trial-court record was directed to be remitted immediately.