Section 194, BNSS 2023 — the substance

When the officer in charge of a police station receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed, shall proceed to the place, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, make an investigation and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument, such marks appear to have been inflicted.

And further: where there is any doubt regarding the cause of death, or where for any other reason the officer considers it expedient, he shall forward the body to the nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical officer appointed in that behalf, for examination.

📖 Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 4 SCC 153

Facts: A conviction was challenged on the ground that the inquest report did not mention the names of the accused or of the eyewitnesses, and that its silence on those matters showed the prosecution case to have been a later construction.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the object of the proceedings under the inquest provision is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death, and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The Court held that the question whether there are any suspicious circumstances, and the details of the overt acts, are matters foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under that section: it is not the requirement of the section that the inquest report should contain the names of the accused, the names of the eyewitnesses, or a narrative of how the occurrence took place. It followed that the absence of those particulars from an inquest report is no ground for doubting the prosecution case. The Court held that an argument founded on such omissions proceeds on a misconception of the purpose of the document, and declined to give it any weight.

Ratio: The object of an inquest is merely to ascertain the apparent cause of death. The names of the accused, of the eyewitnesses, and the details of the overt acts are foreign to its scope, and their absence is no ground for doubting the prosecution case.

📖 Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 2 SCC 450

Facts: Discrepancies between the inquest report and the evidence given at the trial were relied on to attack the prosecution case, and the Supreme Court considered what use may properly be made of such a report.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the inquest report is not substantive evidence and cannot be used as such: it is a document prepared for a limited statutory purpose, and its contents do not become proof of the facts recorded in it. The Court held that the report may be used to contradict its maker if he is examined as a witness, but that discrepancies between the inquest report and the evidence at the trial do not by themselves discredit the prosecution — the report being prepared at an early stage, often in haste, by an officer whose concern is the body and the injuries rather than the occurrence. It held that the report is not required to record the manner of the occurrence, and that omissions in it are therefore not fatal. The Court emphasised that what is to be tested is the evidence given on oath at the trial, and that the inquest report serves only as a check on the account of the injuries.

Ratio: The inquest report is not substantive evidence and is prepared for a limited purpose. Discrepancies between it and the evidence at trial do not by themselves discredit the prosecution, and omissions in it are not fatal.

⚠ Two further points

Where there is doubt about the cause of death, section 194 requires the officer to forward the body to the nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical officer for examination. The doubt need not be grave; the test is whether he considers it expedient.

An inquest is not a trial of anybody. The Magistrate or officer holding it is not deciding guilt, is not required to hear anyone accused, and cannot make a finding of responsibility — which is why the report is not substantive evidence.

But the inquest may be the foundation of the investigation. Where it discloses a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed, the ordinary machinery of investigation follows — and the report is part of the record it produces.

And the presence of independent witnesses matters. Section 194 requires two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood to be present. Their absence does not invalidate the report, but it removes the check the requirement exists to supply.

The position stated shortly

1. An inquest is part of the investigation, but with a narrow and defined purpose: to ascertain the apparent cause of death.

2. Section 194 applies where a person has committed suicide, or been killed by another, an animal, machinery or an accident, or has died in circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion of an offence.

3. The officer proceeds to the place in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants and draws up a report of the apparent cause of death, the injuries, and the manner and weapon by which they appear to have been inflicted.

4. Where there is doubt about the cause of death, or he considers it expedient, he shall forward the body for medical examination.

5. The inquest report is not required to contain the names of the accused, the names of the witnesses, or the manner of the occurrence: Pedda Narayana.

6. Their absence is therefore no ground for doubting the prosecution case, and an argument founded on such omissions proceeds on a misconception of the document.

7. The report is not substantive evidence, and discrepancies between it and the evidence at trial do not by themselves discredit the prosecution: Radha Mohan Singh.

8. Section 196: where a person dies or disappears, or a woman is alleged to have been raped, in police custody, the inquiry shall be held by a Judicial Magistrate.

9. The body shall be forwarded for post-mortem within twenty-four hours unless reasons recorded in writing make it impossible.

10. The reason for the Judicial Magistrate is plain: the persons who would ordinarily hold the inquest are the persons whose conduct is in question.