Madras HC Orders Magistrate To Reconsider Mother’s Challenge To Son’s Accidental-Death Closure, Finding ‘Eyewitnesses’ Arrived After The Alleged Fall

The police registered Crime No. 51 of 2025 under Section 194 BNSS after Vincent Prabu, the petitioner’s son, was found dead following an alleged fall from his motorcycle.

After investigation, the police filed a negative report.

The petitioner challenged it by filing a protest petition, contending that the death was suspicious and the investigation defective.

The Judicial Magistrate-I, Sivagangai, accepted the negative report and dismissed the protest petition.

The petitioner sought revision of that order.

The High Court found that the Magistrate’s reasons included an erroneous finding that the petitioner had not mentioned prior enmity, reliance on purported eyewitnesses whose statements indicated they arrived after the occurrence, and reliance on medical evidence that did not definitively establish accidental death.

The revision was brought under Section 438 BNSS, read with Section 442 BNSS.

The Court also referred to the investigation under Section 194 BNSS and to the petitioner’s statement recorded under Section 180(3) BNSS.

In considering a protest petition against a negative police report, the Magistrate must apply independent judicial mind and consider the materials on record rather than simply accept the police report.

The judgment cited no precedent.

The Court found that the Magistrate’s decision rested on materially mistaken or unsupported premises.

The petitioner’s recorded statement did refer to prior disputes; the alleged eyewitnesses’ statements indicated that they arrived only after the occurrence; and the postmortem certificate gave no definite opinion on the cause of death, with the Court identifying unresolved medical matters and a delay between the postmortem certificate and final opinion.

The Magistrate also failed to consider phone call records raised in the protest petition.

Taken together, these matters showed that the negative report had been accepted without proper independent consideration of the record.

It remanded the protest petition for disposal in accordance with law after consideration of all materials on record, directing the Magistrate to complete the exercise within three months of receiving the order and not to be influenced by the High Court’s observations.