Madhya Pradesh High Court orders DSP-level independent probe into alleged suicide video naming wife and relatives

The petitioner, the 66-year-old mother of deceased Pawan, invoked Article 226 seeking a fair and proper investigation into Merg/Inquest Intimation No. 06/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Burhanpur, after Pawan was found dead in a hotel room during the intervening night of 12–13 July 2025.

The post-mortem report attributed the death to asphyxia due to hanging.

The petitioner alleged that, shortly before his death, Pawan uploaded a Facebook video naming Rachana Ingle, allegedly his wife, along with her father and relatives, and attributing responsibility to them for the circumstances preceding his death.

She submitted representations to senior police authorities, including the Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police, alleging that no effective investigation had been conducted and that there was potential police bias.

An RTI reply dated 29 March 2026 stated that the investigation remained pending.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the Merg inquiry was still under investigation and that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy before the competent Magistrate.

Whether the High Court should direct a fair, impartial and expeditious investigation into the Merg/Inquest Intimation concerning the petitioner’s son, particularly in view of the alleged video and the petitioner’s allegations of investigative bias?

Whether the alleged video, its authenticity, contents and the conduct of the persons named therein required investigation to determine whether a cognizable offence, including abetment of suicide, was disclosed?

What directions should be issued regarding the officer responsible for the investigation and the manner and timeframe for completing the inquiry?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that an investigation is fair, impartial and effective where material placed before the police may disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

A finding that the death was prima facie suicide by hanging does not, by itself, terminate the investigative obligation where other material suggests that the deceased may have been subjected to conduct contributing to or facilitating the suicide.

The police must independently verify relevant electronic evidence, including the authenticity, source and contents of an alleged digital recording, and examine whether the facts disclose abetment of suicide or another cognizable offence.

The Court may direct a change or supervision of the investigating officer to secure impartiality, but should not itself determine guilt or compel registration of a particular offence without investigation.

The Court found that the alleged Facebook video was material evidence requiring investigation.

Its genuineness, whether it was uploaded by the deceased, whether the transcript accurately reflected its contents, and whether the allegations constituted abetment of suicide or another cognizable offence could not be conclusively accepted or rejected at the writ stage.

The post-mortem finding of death by hanging did not obviate the need to investigate the circumstances preceding the death.

The petitioner’s repeated representations and the RTI response showing that the investigation was still pending further justified judicial directions to ensure effective progress.

In view of the allegations against a police officer, the Court considered it appropriate that the investigation be entrusted to a responsible officer, preferably not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was independent of the officer implicated in the allegations.

The investigation was to be conducted by an independent responsible officer, preferably not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

The investigating officer was directed to examine the alleged video, its authenticity and source, the original electronic record, other electronic evidence, relevant witnesses, and all circumstances preceding and surrounding the death.

The petitioner’s representations were also to be considered.

If the investigation disclosed a cognizable offence, appropriate proceedings were to be initiated; otherwise, a reasoned decision was required.

The Superintendent of Police was directed to monitor the investigation and endeavour to bring it to its logical conclusion, preferably within three months from production of the certified order.